Saturday, December 23, 2006
Research findings can be distorted in the lay press. Journalists and scientists must share the responsibilities of better explaining and interpreting science in an accessible and meaningful context for nonspecialist readers.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
This article reports a novel method for translating medical dictionaries by combining electronic word extraction and automated alignment. This method pernmits to rapidly generate a medical terminology dictionary. This research which also identifies inconsistencies in currently used terminology systems was performed in a Swedish-English dictionary with 31,000 entries.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
The mechanism for allocating science funding in the UK is to move away from peer review to a measure based on research income, postgraduate research student data and bibliometrics. For other disciplines, including mathematics and statistics, funding is going to be based on a "significantly reduced, light-touch peer review process informed by a range of discipline-specific indicators". The new system for science, engineering and technology will be phased in between September 2010 and August 2014.
This piece describes how eye-catching journal covers are surviving in the age of the Internet, at least in chemistry, and briefly discusses the surrounding ethical issues and how they are used to promote articles.
The authors, librarians at the California Institute of Technology, warn learned society publishers, such as the American Chemical Society and the Royal Society of Chemistry, that high quality is not enough to secure their position and that libraries will be taking cost effectiveness into account. Further, they suggest that it looks bad for learned society publishers to be seen to align themselves with commercial publishers rather than the research communities they serve, for example on the subject of open access.
Monday, December 11, 2006
The editors of PLOS Medicine wonder whether they, as editors, are publishing the right stuff in their journal on the basis of the findings of a major study estimating the likely trends in global morbidity and mortality. This editorial critically considers what editors should be publishing and the proportion of research on different diseases appearing in a general medical journal.
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Johnson C. 2006 Repetitive, Duplicate, and Redundant Publications: A Review for Authors and Readers. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics. 29(7): 505-509
This editorial defines and discusses a range of terminology, relevant to the repetitive, duplicate and redundant scientific literature. It also assesses the affect of these publications on science as a whole, asking the questions: What is wrong with duplicate publication, why do people do it, when is duplicate publication acceptable and who is responsible? The article concludes with discussion on prevention and policy making.
This general-interest article reviews the contribution of William Chambers (1800–1883), who was one of the first science publishers to take advantage of steam power and new machinery in the 19th century to reach a national market, reaching a broad readership from all parts of society. The article is part of the Science in the Industrial Revolution series.