Posts

B - How to collaborate with medical communicators

on
0

B - Publishers and point-of-care information services

on
0

B - Disclosure of competing interests

on
0

B - How to review journal manuscripts

on
0

B - Research integrity and publication ethics

on
0

B - Croatia moves away from fostering research integrity

on
0

B - Who's a peer?

on
0

B - Metrics: a profusion of measures

on
0

B - Open access availability of LIS research

on
0

B - Improving access to research

on
0

B - Principles of ethical publishing

on
0

B - Writing book reviews

on
0

B - Positive-outcome bias in peer review

on
0

B - A CV of failures

on
0

B - Implementing open access

on
0

N - Preserving data

on
0

B - Science publishing: whose intellectual property?

on
0

N - How much does peer review cost?

on
0

B - Authorship and industry support

on
0

B – Classification of biases in medical research

on
0

B - Interactive open access publishing and peer review

on
0

B - Author-suggested reviewers vs editor-suggested reviewers

on
0

B - Disclosing all data

on
0

B - A bibliometric investigation of the Ortega hypothesis

on
0

B - A new method for measuring research leadership

on
0

B - Publication pattern of theses in Peru

on
2

B - Usage of open access journals

on
1

B - Google Scholar as a tool for discovering articles in LIS journals

on
0

B - Publishing in China

on
0

B - Disseminate time-sensitive research faster

on
0

B - Are shorter article titles more attractive to citations?

on
0

B - How a pre-publication review may affect the rate of scientific progress

on
0

B - Fraud and ethics

on
0

B- Preserving research for the future

on
0

B - New APS policies enhance access to journals

on
0

B - Scholarly publishing through open access: a bibliography

on
0

B - Mutations of citations

on
0

B - PaperMaker: validation of biomedical scientific publications

on
0

B- How to review journal manuscripts

on
1

B - Peer review should continue after publication

on
0

B - Free journals grow

on
0

B - The Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP)

on
0

B - Can we do better than existing author citation metrics?

on
0

N - UK science austerity on its way

on
0

N - Top tips for editorial professionals

on
0

N - US open access battle rumbles on

on
0

N - Making climate data free for all

on
0

N - Ghostwriting in the drug industry

on
0

N - JSTOR interface update

on
0

N - ENCePP Code of Conduct

on
0

N - Multilingual WorldwideScience.org

on
0

N - Research integrity guidelines

on
0

B - Authors' responses to post-publication feedback

on
0

B - Usage of e-Journals

on
0

B – Reporting bias in medicine

on
0

B - Social relationships are key to health

on
0

B - The growth rate of scientific publication and the decline in SCI coverage

on
0

B - A terminology quality improvement model

on
0

B - How to boost a paper's citations

on
0

B - Writing a structured abstract for the thesis

on
0

N - MedChemComm launches

on
1

B - Gender bias in medical publication

on
0

B - Public perception of clinical trials

on
0

B - Changing ethos of medical publications

on
0

N - Steering a middle course

on
0

B - Publication bias in stroke studies

on
0

N - New group tackles European copyright

on
0

N - Scandinavian open access initiatives

on
0

N - PLoS ignores impact factors

on
0

B - Assessing sincerity of misconduct apologies

on
0

B - Do pressures to publish increase scientists' bias?

on
0

B - Bridging the divide between science and journalism

on
0

B - Health research reporting guidelines

on
0

B - Medical ghostwriting

on
0

B - Business in medical writing: a monographic issue

on
0

N - DOIs in the popular press

on
0

B - Do reviews deserve their citations?

on
0

N - Royal Society journals free for July

on
0

N - EndNote gets an upgrade

on
0

N - Springer Opening Up

on
0

N - Peer review turned around

on
0

B - Sources of dissemination bias

on
0

B - Open access survey

on
0

B - Preparing raw clinical data for publication

on
0

B - Repositories and journals: are they in conflict?

on
0

B - Promoting scientific standards

on
0

B - Peer review delay and selectivity

on
0

B - Number of reviewers and editors' rejection rate

on
0

B - Putting gender on the agenda

on
0

B - New journal models

on
0

N - Library outsources proofreading

on
0

B - Open access biomedical journals in Greece

on
0

B - Highly cited articles in LIS: analysis of content and authorship

on
0

N - Science papers in South Africa

on
0

B - Does a Hierarchy of the Sciences exist?

on
0

B - Are editorial peer reviewers' recommendations reliable?

on
0

N - Publication awards

on
0

B - Indicators for measuring researchers' performance

on
0

B - Science fails to face the shortcomings of statistics

on
0

N - Learn a language, adopt a national stereotype?

on
0

N - Making referencing too easy?

on
1

N - Science video awards

on
0

B - Fraud: who is responsible?

on
0

B - Conflict of interest policies

on
0

B - Research misconduct policies

on
0

B - E-publication bias

on
0

B- Roundtable participants find near-consensus on free access to results of publicly funded research

on
0

B - Preparing clinical data for publication

on
0

B - Publication bias in surgery journals

on
0

B - Peer review process: language and content comments

on
0

N - Libel law: the real fight lies ahead

on
0

B - Plagiarism retracts review

on
0

B - Periodicals Price Survey 2010

on
0

N- Authors by the gross

on
0

B - Journal myths

on
0

B - ICMJE requirements on competing interests: do they solve the problems?

on
0

B - Challenging conventions on sample size

on
0

B - Retractions: COPE guidance

on
0

B- Ghost(writer)busters

on
0

B - Researchers' perception of citations

on
0

B - Peering into review

on
0

B - Bias in the research literature

on
0