-
B – Open peer review: a review of the literature17 January 2014Ford E. Defining and characterizing open peer review: a review of the literature. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 2013; 44(4):311-326 (doi: 10.1353/scp.2013.0028) This article examines the literature discussing open peer review, identifies common open peer review definitions, and describes eight common characteristics of open peer review: signed review, disclosed review, editor-mediated review, transparent review, crowd-sourced review, pre-publication review, […]
-
B – Bibliometric indicators of Russian journals17 January 2014Libkind AN, Markusova VA, Mindeli LE, et al. Bibliometric indicators of Russian journals by JCR-Science Edition, 1995-2010. Acta Naturae 2013;5(3):6-12 A representative empirical bibliometric analysis of the Russian journals covered by the Journal Citation Reports-Science Edition (JCR -SE) for the period 1995–2010 has been conducted for the first time at the macro level (excluding subject […]
-
B – Reducing waste from reports of biomedical research14 January 2014Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. The Lancet publ.online Jan.8, 2014(doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62228-X) Most publications have elements that are missing, poorly reported, or ambiguous. Reporting guidelines such as CONSORT, STARD, PRISMA, and ARRIVE aim to improve the quality of research reports, but all are […]
-
B – Reduce waste in research design, conduct, and analysis14 January 2014Ioannidis JPA,Greenland S, Htlatky MA, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. The Lancet publ.online Jan.8, 2014(doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62227-8) The authors outlined several problems and solutions to reduce waste in the design, conduct, and analysis of research. Potential solutions include improvements in protocols and documentation, consideration of evidence from studies […]
-
B – How to increase value and reduce waste in biomedical research14 January 2014Chalmers I, Bracken M, Djulbegovic B, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. The Lancet 2014;383(9912):156-165(doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62229-1) This is the first article in a series of five papers published in The Lancet about “Research: increasing value, reducing waste”. It is focused on the reductions in waste of resources […]
-
B – Teaching scientific editing19 December 2013Willey I, Tanimoto K. “Convenience editors” as legitimate participants in the practice of scientific editing: an interview study. Journal of English for Academic Purposers 2013;12(1):23-32 This study explored how English teachers who regularly edited healthcare-related texts learned the “craft” of scientific editing. The authors interviewed English-teaching editors of scientific texts written by Japanese authors, with […]
-
B – What makes a good title?19 December 2013Grant MJ. What makes a good title? Health Information and Library Journal 2013;30:259-260(doi: 10.1111/hir.12049) What factors transform a mediocre title into a good title? Firstly, it should be both informative and specific, using words or phrases likely to be used when searching for information. Secondly, it should be concise yet convey the main ideas clearly; […]
-
B – Benchmarking biomedical publications19 December 2013Boissier MC. Benchmarking biomedical publications worldwide. Rheumatology 2013;52(9):1545-1546. (doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/ket181) The volume of science as evaluated by the number of publications is increasing 10-fold every 50 years, and the number of scientific journals doubled every 13 years on average. This growth is driven in part by emerging countries such as China, India, Brazil, South Korea, Turkey […]
-
B – Use of double dummy trial19 December 2013Marušić A, Ferenčić SF. Adoption of the double dummy trial design to reduce observer bias in testing treatments. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 2013;106(5):196-198 (doi: 10.1177/0141076813485350) The use of the double dummy trial was reported to reduce observer bias. Although the use of placebo controls (dummy treatments) and blind assessment to decrease […]
-
B – Editing across borders19 December 2013Drouart M (Ed.) Editing across borders: papers from the 6th IPEd National Editors Conference, 10-12 April 2013, Perth, Western Australia.Online proceedings of a Conference on editing held in April 2013 in Perth, Western Australia, by the Society of Editors (West Australia) and the Institute of Professional Editors (IPEd), the 6th IPEd National Editors Conference. They include […]
-
B – Gender differences in research collaboration18 December 2013Abramo G, D’Angelo CA, Murgia G. Gender differences in research collaboration. Journal of Informetrics 2013;7(4):811-822(doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2013.07.002) The issue of gender aspects in research collaborations has been treated in a marginal manner. In this article the authors apply an innovative bibliometric approach, that is the measurement of gender differences in the propensity to collaborate by fields, disciplines […]
-
B – Redefining misconduct18 December 2013Fanelli D. Redefine misconduct as distorted reporting. Nature 2013;494:149(doi: 10.1038/494149a) Only the most egregious cases of misconduct are discovered and punished. Publication, peer-review and misconduct investigations should focus less on what scientists do, and more on what they communicate, and they should also ensure that it is impossible to lie by omission. A good start would […]
