Tuesday, October 31, 2006


Wager E. 2006. Publishing clinical trial results: The future beckons. PLoS Clin Trials 1(6): e31.

Why do we publish clinical trials results? Is the present format for reporting results from randomized clinical trials in peer-reviewed journals still efficient and effective? The advantages offered by alternative models of publications are presented and the implications for trial sponsors and medical journals are discussed in detail. Problems, opportunities and possible solutions on reporting results are clearly pointed out in the ever changing scenario of online publications.

Friday, October 20, 2006


Farthing, M. J. G. 2006. Authors and Publication Practices. Science and Engineering Ethics. 12(1):41.

Not only authors can perpetrate research and publication misconduct, but journal editors and reviewers may also breach ethical standards (particularly with respect to conflicts of interest). The progression towards ‘open’ peer review is a result of the need for increased transparency. This paper also discusses the need for a drastic overhaul of the relationship between journals, editors and the biomedical industry. A radical proposal that journals should no longer publish clinical trials sponsored by industry is examined.



GarcĂ­a Landa L. G. 2006. Academic Language Barriers and Language Freedom. Current Issues in Language Planning. 7(1):61.
The current trend to publish research predominantly in English acts as an obstacle to many non-English-speaking academics in poor countries wishing to access and publish scientific literature. A case study at the National Autonomous University of Mexico examines these issues by asking researchers and teachers about the language of choice for their activities, the problems they faced and how they were solved.



Burrough-Boenisch, J. 2006. Negotiable Acceptability: Reflections on the Interactions between Language Professionals in Europe and NNS 1 Scientists Wishing to Publish in English. Current Issues in Language Planning. 7(1):31.

This paper discusses what affects the criteria of acceptability of language professionals when working with a non-native speaking author before submission of their papers in English. It is argue that language planners could make significant contribution by both training language professionals and securing better guidance from journals.



Ammon U. 2006. Language Planning for International Scientific Communication: An Overview of Questions and Potential Solutions. Current Issues in Language Planning. 7(1):1.

The recent history of international science communication is discussed in the context of possible improvements to language planning. With English increasing becoming the language choice in today’s scientific communication, the paper analyses the problems and advantage which are encountered. Suggestions include a campaign to raise awareness amongst Anglophones of the difficulties faced by non-Anglophones, especially by scientists of recently declined international languages. The paper also discusses the possible downsides for scientific progress by a reduction to a single international science language.