-
B – Impact factor mania19 September 2014Casadevall A, Fang FC. Causes for the persistence of impact factor mania. mBio 2014;5(2):e00064-14 (doi: 10.1128/mBio.00064-14)Science and scientists are currently afflicted by an epidemic of mania manifested by associating the value of research with the journal where the work is published rather than the content of the work itself. The authors consider the reasons for the […]
-
B – An example of unethical behaviour19 September 2014Masic I. A new example of unethical behavior in the academic journal “Medical Archives”. Medical Archives 2014;68(4):228-230(doi: 10.5455/medarh.2014.68.228.230) A recent case of unethical behaviour by authors who have submitted their article in the Medical Archives is described in this Editorial. The same article was submitted to another journal and then retracted and sent to “Retraction […]
-
B – Plagiarism and ethics19 September 2014Jamali R, Ghazinoory S, Sadeghi M. Plagiarism and ethics of knowledge. Journal of Information Ethics 2014;23(1):101-110(doi: 10.3172/JIE.23.1.101) This study aims to investigate whether there is any difference between plagiarism volumes in different fields of study in Iran. Specifically, if there is any significant difference between these statistics among five countries, namely Iran, USA, Turkey, Australia […]
-
B – Scholarly publishing trends 201419 September 2014Smart P. The big picture: scholarly publishing trends 2014. Science Editing 2014;1(2):52-57(doi: 10.6087/kcse.2014.1.52) This article considers the changes that have happened recently to the scholarly journal environment, starting with the changes in research and development and the influence of the emerging economies. It then considers the financial models and the serials crisis that led to […]
-
B – Science transparency30 July 2014Denegri S, Faure H. It’s plain and simple: transparency is good for science and in the public interest. Trials 2013;14:215 (doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-14-215) In the past couple of years, there has been a growing focus on the need to make scientific output accessible to a greater number of people, especially in the field of clinical research. […]
-
B – Lay summaries of OA articles30 July 2014Nunn E, Pinfield S. Lay summaries of open access journal articles: engaging with the general public on medical research. Learned Publishing 2014;27(3):173-184(doi: 10.1087/20140303) This study investigates attitudes towards the addition of lay summaries to open-access journal articles in the context of engaging the public with medical research. In particular, the perspectives of two stakeholder groups […]
-
B – Periodicals price survey 201430 July 2014Bosch S, Henderson K. Steps down the evolutionary road. Periodicals price survey 2014. Library Journal April 2014 The article discusses the serials and scholarly publishing industry as of April 2014, focusing on the authors’ identification of trends impacting use and pricing in the field according to data from the Periodicals Price Survey 2014. Topics include the […]
-
B – Recommended procedures for retracting articles30 July 2014Gilliver S. Recommended procedures for retracting articles: inadequate or patchily applied? Analysis of a recent article in PLoS One examining the fates of retracted articles. Medical Writing 2014;23(2):122-124(doi: 10.1179/2047480614Z000000000202) In several cases, many articles, that are found to have broken ethics rules, have been linked to a single researcher. A 2014 study published in PLoS […]
-
B – The impact of retraction30 July 2014Madlock-Brown CR, Eichmann D. The (lack of) impact of retraction on citation networks. Science and Engineering Ethics e-pub March 2014(doi: 10.1007/s11948-014-9532-1) This paper presents an analysis of recent retraction patterns, with a unique emphasis on the role author self-cites play, to assist the scientific community in creating counter-strategies. The findings indicate new reasons for retractions […]
-
B – Retractions of scientific publications30 July 2014Katavić V. Retractions of scientific publications: responsibility and accountability. Biochemia Medica 2014;24(2):217-222(doi: 10.11613/BM.2014.024) This evidence-based opinion piece gives a short overview of the increase in retractions of publications in scientific journals and discusses various reasons for that increase. Also discussed are some of the recent prominent cases of scientific misconduct, the number of authors with multiple […]
-
B – Quality of author guidelines30 July 2014Nambiar R, Tilak P, Cerejo C. Quality of author guidelines of journals in the biomedical and physical sciences. Learned Publishing 2014;27(3):201-209 (doi: 10.1087/20140306) This article aimed to assess quantitatively the completeness and clarity of author guidelines of 80 international English-language journals in the biomedical and physical sciences. No journal scored 100% for completeness and clarity. While […]
-
B – Publishing ethics29 July 2014Abdollahi M, Gasparyan AY, Saeidnia S. The urge to publish more and its consequences. DARU Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 2014;22:53(doi: 10.1186/2008-2231-22-53) Uncovered cases of misconduct and violation of publication ethics are increasing at rapid pace due to the digitization and open access movement in the last two decades. Large amount of funding for research, publishing […]
