-
B – Peer review: past, present and future29 July 2013Munishwar NG . Peer review: past, present and future. Current Science 2013;105(2):159-161 A better appreciation of the respective roles of authors, reviewers, and editors is desirable for a good publication to emerge. Over the years, peer review has taken many shapes and continues to evolve. This article outlines the various facets of the peer review […]
-
B – Publishing function29 July 2013Singleton A. Publishing – is our love here to stay… Learned Publishing 2013;26:155-156(doi: 10.1087/320130301) The author examines present challenges existing to academic publishers and any kind of corporate publishing, such as: potential technological obsolence, legitimacy of publishers’ role and even of the “product” that they have been responsible for, and the rise of new systems […]
-
B – Prescribed practices of authorship22 July 2013Bošnjak L, Marušić A. Prescribed practices of authorship: review of codes of ethics from professional bodies and journal guidelines across disciplines. Scientometrics 2012;93(3):751-763(doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0773-y) The lack of and variety of authorship definitions in journal and professional organizations across scientific disciplines may be confusing for researchers and lead to poor authorship practices. In this study the […]
-
B – Impact factor distortions22 July 2013Alberts B. Impact factor distortions. Science 2013;340(6134):787(doi: 10.1126/science.1240319) This Editorial presents a statement on the misuse and overuse of the impact factor, the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). It aims to stop the use of the journal impact factor in judging an individual scientist’s work, and provides a list of specific actions to be taken […]
-
B – Predatory scholarly publishing22 July 2013Vardi MY. Predatory scholarly publishing. Communications of the ACM 2012;55(7):5(doi: 10.1145/2209249.2209250) Scholarly publishing is a very unique business, in which there are several parties: publishers, research libraries, authors, editors and reviewers. The author states that the partnership that once existed between the scholarly community and commercial publishers is broken. Commercial publishers are driven by profits, […]
-
B – Peer review: nuts and bolts22 July 2013Voice of Young Science network. Peer review: the nuts and bolts (Standing up for science; 3). 12 July 2012; 26 p. Produced with the help of over 40 early career researchers, editors, journalist and grant bodies’ representatives, this guide will help early career researchers understand how the peer review process works, some of the limitations of […]
-
B – Evaluations by peer review18 July 2013B – Bornmann L. Evaluations by peer review in science. Science Reviews e-pub 31 January 2013(doi: 10.1007/s40362-012-0002-3) Nowadays, it is recommended for major evaluation contexts to use an informed peer review process where the peers are informed by bibliometric indicators. This review gives a short overview of the practice of peerreview and its linking with […]
-
B – Acta Informatica Medica indexed in PubMed18 July 2013Masic I. Acta Informatica Medica is indexed in PubMed and archived in PubMed Central. Acta Informatica Medica 2013;21(1):4-6(doi: 10.5455/AIM.2013.21.4-6) Acta Informatica Medica journal has been accepted for archiving in PubMed Central from 2011 onward. The journal started in 1993 as the official journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia and Herzegovina. During the […]
-
B – Altmetrics for institutional repositories18 July 2013Konkiel S, Scherer D. New opportunities for repositories in the age of altmetrics. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2013;39(4):22-26(doi:10.1002/bult.2013.1720390408) By reporting altmetrics (alternative metrics based on online activity) for their content, institutional repositories can add value to existing metrics – and prove their relevance and importance in an age of […]
-
B – Bioresources sharing and traceability19 June 2013Mabile L, Dalgleish R, Thorisson GA, et al. Quantifying the use of bioresources for promoting their sharing in scientific research. GigaScience 2013;2:7(doi: 10.1186/2047-217X-2-7) An increasing portion of biomedical research relies on the use of biobanks and bioresources. To address the need to incentivize the development, maintenance, and sharing of bioresources, an appropriate set of principles, tools, […]
-
B – Cost effectiveness for open access journals18 June 2013Corbyn Z. Price doesn’t always buy prestige in open access. Nature 22 Jan. 2013 (doi: 10.1038/nature.2013.12259) An online interactive tool suggests that the open-access journals that charge the most aren’t necessarily the most influential. This freely accessible tool, called Cost Effectiveness for Open Access Journals and launched in January 2013, incorporates pricing and prestige information for 657 […]
-
B – Open access and altmetrics18 June 2013Mounce R. Open access and altmetrics: distinct but complementary. Bulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2013;39(4):14-17 Open access (OA) publications have been shown to gain more citations than articles with restricted access. Thus, alternative metrics (altmetrics) have arisen to better assess the influence and impact of online journal articles. They are still new, relatively unexplored and […]
