N - Editor quits after hoax

The editor of an open access journal has quit after a fake computer generated paper passed the journal's peer review process and was accepted. The Open Information Science Journal (www.bentham.org/open/toiscij/) would have charged the authors $800 to publish the hoax, which was submitted under false names. The authors claim to have wanted to test the editorial standards of the publisher, Bentham Science Publishers. Alex Williamson, former publishing director at the BMJ, suggested that journals vary in quality and that poor ones are more likely to be open access: "Any idiot can start a journal on the web." (www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/jun/18/science-editor-resigns-hoax-article)

N - Indian journal's integrity questioned

An academic has branded the Indian journal Scientific Medicine (www.scientificmedicineonline.org) a "scam," according to reports in the BMJ. A publicity email sent by a student representative wrongly listed Richard Smith, former BMJ editor, Gavin Yamey, a senior editor at PloS Medicine, and others, as members of the editorial board. The student says that he tried to correct this mistake, but the email had already been circulated further. Scientific Medicine says that one of its aim is to give students in developing countries the opportunity to learn about medical research and the publication process—for which it charges them $100. (BMJ 2009;338:b735 and b804)

N - A pedant and proud

"Pedant is not a term I choose, but nor is it one that I any longer regard as the insult that is generally intended," writes Oliver Kamm, in an introduction to his new column on the English language in the Times. The column will prescribe usage because "language needs its protectors because it is not infinitely malleable," he says. "Rapid change causes much of the literature of the past to become obscure to modern readers. A society with a diminished sense of its literary inheritance is inevitably coarsened. The same goes for its understanding of history." (http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article6586237.ece)
Thanks to Margaret Cooter

N - Help for developing world authors

Free editorial feedback for authors in the developing world is being provided by students from leading academic institutions in Canada, Europe, and the United States, reports Naomi Antony on SciDev.Net. SciEdit (www.jyi.org/sciedit) adapts texts in accordance with the editorial standards of journals such as Nature. SciEdit is the brainchild of the Journal of Young Investigators, a student led, peer reviewed journal for undergraduates, with members from more than 30 academic institutions including the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. Most international scientific journals are written in English, making it difficult for non-native English speaking scientists to compete, says Justin Chakma, cofounder of SciEdit. (www.scidev.net/en/news/scheme-helps-polish-developing-country-science-pap.html)
Thanks to Alison Clayson

N - Editors must cover climate change

That editors must do more to encourage articles about climate change was a recurring theme at the World Conference of Science Journalists, according to Sian Lewis of SciDev.Net. The problem is that climate change is "tomorrow’s story, or next year's—but not today's." International climate talks, such as the UNFCCC Conference of Parties meetings and the negotiations planned in Copenhagen, can be used as hooks for articles on global warming, a delegate suggested. Another ruse is to use local events to bring up related issues of climate change. "Humanise it," was the advice from the Guardian's Damien Harrington. (http://scidevnet.wordpress.com/2009/07/01/reporting-tomorrows-story-today/)

B - A Principal Component Analysis of 39 Scientific Impact Measures

Bollen J, Van de Sompel H, Hagberg A, Chute R, 2009 A Principal Component Analysis of 39 Scientific Impact Measures. PLoS ONE 2009;4(6): e6022.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006022

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0006022

An interesting analysis on 39 different kinds of indicators to assess scholarly impact in science.
A part from the traditional citation counts, and the common Journal Impact Factor (that should be used cautiously), new methods like log usage data and social network analysis are reported. However, in the opinion of the authors, it is important to stress that we do not have a universally accepted, golden standard of impact to calibrate any new measures to. It is even difficult to define "scientific impact” precisely. And it may be understood and measured in many different ways. The issue thus becomes which impact measures best express its various aspects and interpretations. In conclusion, scientific impact is a multi-dimensional construct that can not be adequately measured by any single indicator, although some measures are more suitable than others.

B - Looking for Landmarks: The Role of Expert Review and Bibliometric Analysis in Evaluating Scientific Publication Outputs

Allen L, Jones C, Dolby K, Lynn D, Walport M. Looking for Landmarks: The Role of Expert Review and Bibliometric Analysis in Evaluating Scientific Publication Outputs. PLoS ONE 2009;4(6): e5910.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005910

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005910

The evaluation of research quality is always a hot issue. This article shows that relying solely on bibliometric indicators can lead to evaluation bias; since experts judgement highly rated articles that were not highly cited during the first three years after publication. The importance of single papers or small groups of research should be assessed with a complementary method that links expert peer reviews to quantitative measures.

N - Publisher censors sexuality article

Taylor and Francis has prevented an article on pederasty from being published in the Journal of Homosexuality (www.haworthpress.com/store/product.asp?sku=J082), blogged Harvey Marcovitch on bmj.com. The article had been accepted before the publisher acquired the journal. Advance online publication of the abstract of the article caused uproar after a conservative US pressure group made "the baseless accusation that [the author] was . . . advocating sex with children," according to an editor. In compromise the author was invited to revise the article for a theme issue, but Taylor and Francis, whose journals belong to the Committee on Publication Ethics (http://publicationethics.org), then decided against publication.
(http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2009/06/17/harvey-marcovitch-on-censorship-squeamishness-and-same-sex-desire/)

N - Google affects the brain

The act of searching with Google changes patterns of cognition, research has shown. An exploratory study of people aged 55-76 found that internet searching may engage neural circuitry that is not activated while reading text pages, in people with prior computer and internet search experience. The researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging of the brain to compare activity in net savvy and net naive users. The net savvy group had more signal intensity in additional regions controlling decision making, complex reasoning, and vision, including the frontal pole, anterior temporal region, anterior and posterior cingulate, and hippocampus. More research is needed, particularly in younger web users. (American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 2009;17:116-26, http://journals.lww.com/ajgponline/Abstract/2009/02000/Your_Brain_on_Google__Patterns_of_Cerebral.4.aspx.)
Thanks to Margaret Cooter

B - I Am Not a Scientist, I Am a Number

Bourne PE, Fink JL. I Am Not a Scientist, I Am a Number. PLoS Comput Biol. 2008 4(12): e1000247.

doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000247

http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000247


The idea of having our scholarly output properly characterized is not out of reach, since the articles we write are already identified uniquely by a Digital Object Identifier (DOI; discussed further below). A book or journal is identified by an ISBN, and citations are identified by PubMed identifiers, and so on. The ideas discussed here simply take this identification process for individual publications and citations to the point of providing unique descriptors for each author and to uniquely identify all of each author's scholarly work.

Sharing medical research data. Whose rights and who’s right?

Greenhalgh, T. Sharing medical research data. Whose rights and who’s right? BMJ 2009;338:b1499

A set of objections to Groves' article “Managing UK research data for future use”, which include issues with data interpretation when it is “cleaved” from the context in which it was collected and/or the people who supplied it and interpreted it, and the breakdown of the trust between researchers and research participants.

doi:10.1136/bmj.b1499

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/338/apr14_2/b1499

Managing UK research data for future use

Groves, T. Managing UK research data for future use. BMJ 2009 338: b1252

The BMJ has recently joined a host of other journals in encouraging authors to make raw research data available to others. Authors are being asked to include a data sharing statement at the end of their original research articles. The statement will explain what additional data are available, to whom and from where they can be found. However, for medical journals sharing of clinical research data has ethical implications, with the maintenance of patient confidentiality being a major challenge. A list of solutions are proposed.

doi:10.1136/bmj.b1252

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/338/mar25_1/b1252

Essay: The Future of Scientific Publishing

Sandweiss, J. Essay: The Future of Scientific Publishing. Physical Review Letters, 2009, May 11

This essay was the last in a series of nine essays written to celebrate last year's 50th anniversary of Physical Review Letters. Both physicists and editors contributed to the series. This particular offering looks ahead to the future of scientific publishing and suggests that most difficult problems that its faces are a result of the ever-increasing volume of published scientific research. Aids to the individual physicist in wading through the mine of information are discussed, which include virtual journals and artificial intelligence programs.

doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.190001

http://prl.aps.org/edannounce/PhysRevLett.102.190001

B - Reality Bites: Periodicals Price Survey 2009

Van Orsdel LC, Born K. Reality Bites: Periodicals Price Survey 2009. In the face of the downturn, libraries and publishers brace for big cuts. Library Journal 2009 /4)15


http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6651248.html

Libraries of all types and sizes are facing dramatic budget cuts. Journal prices are here reported and discusssed. Data are provided for the average 2009 price title in different scientific disciplines (chemistry ranking first at $3,690), the average price per ISI title by country (Russia ranking first at $3,712). The article also includes cost history per groups of disciplines since 2005 and projection prices for2010. Wide commentary is provided on the possible making of Open access mandatory.

B - How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research?

Fanelli D. How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. PLoS ONE. 2009,4(5): e5738

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738


The frequency with which scientists fabricate and falsify data, or commit other forms of scientific misconduct is a matter of controversy. Many surveys have asked scientists directly whether they have committed or know of a colleague who committed research misconduct, but their results appeared difficult to compare and synthesize. This is the first meta-analysis of these surveys. Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005738

B - Marketing data: has the rise of impact factor led to the fall of objective language in the scientific article?

Fraser VJ, Martin JG. Marketing data: has the rise of impact factor led to the fall of objective language in the scientific article? Respiratory Research 2009, 10:35.
doi:10.1186/1465-9921-10-35

http://respiratory-research.com/content/10/1/35

This investigation stresses the fact that the use of value-laden terms in clinical and biomedical journals has increased in the past 25 years. And this is particularly valid for important research journals of high impact factors. The recent trends in the use of biased words in a scientific manuscript shows an exaggeration of the importance of findings and a loss of scientific objectivity. This may fuel skepticism and alienate the reader. In conclusion, it is better to encourage more modest claims and a return to objectivity: "The numbers and not their interpretation, must speak for themselves".

B - Assessing the impact of biomedical research in Academic Institutions of disparate sizes

Sypsa V, Hatzakis A. Assessing the impact of biomedical research in Academic Institutions of disparate sizes. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2009, 9:33. Epub ahead of print
doi:10.1186/1471-2288-9-33

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/9/33

A valid and transparent evaluation of universities is increasingly needed. However, it continues to be a controversial issue. In particular, as regards the assessment of biomedical research, peer-review is not adequate for large-scale evaluations and the authors propose, beyond the usual bibliometric indicators, a new impact measure: the Modified Impact Index (MII). This indicator is suitable for large as well as for small field specific publication sets in biomedicine and should be used together with the h-index, when a comparison of the research output of institutions of disparate sizes is performed.

B - Economic implications of alternative scholarly publishing models

Houghton J, Rasmussen B, Sheehan P, Oppenheim C, Anne Morris, Creaser C, Greenwood H, Summers M, Gourlay A.Economic implications of alternative scholarly publishing models: Exploring the costs and benefits. JISC EI-ASPM Project. A report to the Joint Information Systems Committee. JISC 2009 (Document 510 Version 1.1)


http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/rpteconomicoapublishing.pdf


Advances in information and communication technologies are disrupting traditional models of scholarly publishing, radically changing our capacity to reproduce, distribute, control, and publish information. The key question is whether there are new opportunities and new models for scholarly publishing that would better serve researchers and better communicate and disseminate research findings. This is a detailed report on the ongoing debate on the economics of scholarly publishing and alternative publishing models. It focuses mainly on costs, pointing at the most cost-effective system, that is not necessarily the cheapest. The report will help stakeholders understand the institutional, budgetary and wider economic implications of three of the major emerging models for scholarly publishing: i.e. subscription publishing, open access publishing and self-archiving.