Friday, June 18, 2010

B - Preparing raw clinical data for publication

Hrynaszkiewicz I, Norton ML, Vickers AJ et al. Preparing raw clinical data for publication: guidance for journal editors, authors, and peer reviewers. Trials 2010;11:9
(doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-11-9)

Many peer-reviewed journals require that their authors be prepared to share their raw, unprocessed data with other scientists and/or state the availability of raw data in published articles. A practical guide is provided for those involved in the publication process, by proposing a minimum standard for anonymising datasets for the purpose of publication in a peer-reviewed journal or sharing with other researchers. Basic advice on file preparation is provided along with procedural guidance on prospective and retrospective publication of raw data, with an emphasis on randomised controlled trials.

B - Repositories and journals: are they in conflict?

Brown DJ. Repositories and journals: are they in conflict? A literature review of relevant literature. Aslib Proceedings 2010;62(2).112-43
(doi: 10.1108/00012531011034955)

The paper aims to bring together information on whether any evidence exists of a commercial conflict between the creation of digital archives (institutional repositories, IRs) at reasearch institutions and centres of excellence, and the business of journal publishing. Relevant publications were analyzed to determine it. One significant study is being undertaken by the PEER group, funded by the Europen Commission. It is still too early to say when open access and IRs in particular will erode into the journal subscription base and transform scholarly communications. Up today the relationship between IRs and journal subscriptions is too vague.

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

B - Promoting scientific standards

Alberts B. Editorial. Promoting scientific standards. Science 2010;327(5961):12
(doi: 10.1126/science.1185983)

Journals such as Science occupy a special place in the maintenance of scientific standards to help make science as productive as possible in serving both scientists and the greater society. As a start, two critical authorship issued were considered. First, to discourage "honorary authorship", according to Science policy, each author is required, before acceptance, to identify his/her contribution to the research. Second, Science will require that the senior author for each laboratory or group confirm that he or she has personally reviewed the original data generated by that unit, ascertaining that the data selected for publication in specific figures and tables have been appropriately presented. In this way, Science aims to identify few senior authors - instead of a single author - who take responsibility for the data presented in each publication.

B - Peer review delay and selectivity

Pautasso M, Schaefer H. Peer review delay and selectivity in ecology journals. Scientometrics 2009;84(2):307-15
(doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0105-z)

Relationships among journal reputation, rejection rate, number of submissions received and time from submission to acceptance in 22 ecology/interdisciplinary journals are analyzed. Results show that higher impact factor is positively associated with the number of submissions and that rejection rates are remarkably high and tend to increase with increasing impact factor and with number of submissions. Plausible causes and consequences of these relationships for journals, authors and peer reviewers are discussed.

B - Number of reviewers and editors' rejection rate

Schultz DM. Are three heads better than two? How the number of reviewers and editor behavior affect the rejection rate. Scientometrics 2009;84(2):277-92
(doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0084-0)

Five hundred manuscripts submitted to Monthly Weather Review in the years 2007-2008 were examined to investigate whether the number of reviewers used by an editor affects the rate at which manuscripts are rejected. Rejection rates were not significantly different whether two or three reviewers were used. By means of a simple model, designed for three decision-making strategies for editors, it is demonstrated that, for this dataset, editors are likely to reject a manuscript when any reviewer recommends rejection.

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

B - Putting gender on the agenda

Editorial. Putting gender on the agenda. Nature 2010;465:665 (10 June 2010)
(doi:10.1038/465665a)

Biomedical reserach continues to use many more male subjects than females in both animal studies and human clinical trials. As a consequence, medicine as it is currently applied to women is less evidence-based than that being applied to men. Some steps can be taken to address this problem. Journals can insist that authors document the sex of animals in published papers and the Nature journals are at present considering whether to require the inclusion of such information.

B - New journal models

Cassella M, Calvi L. New journal models and publishing perspectives in the evolving digital environment. IFLA Journal 2010;36(1):7-15
(doi: 10.1177/0340035209359559)

Open access combined with 2.0 tools is fast changing the traditional journal's functions and the publisher's role. The journal is no longer the main referring unit for scholarly output, as it used to be, for scientific, technical an medical disciplines. New experimental journal models are thus evolving, i.e. overlay journals, interjournals and different levels journals. The publishers should concentrate much more on value-added services for authors, readers and libraries, such as navigational services, discovery services, archiving and evaluation services.

Tuesday, June 08, 2010

N - Library outsources proofreading

“Real” libraries are struggling for survival in the digital age – but some are fighting fire with fire. The National Library of Wales, for example, is scanning in all its documents relating to Wales. These scans are converted to OCR (optical character recognition) and then need to be proofread. For proofreading, there's the money-saving possibility of repeating a “crowdsourcing” experiment used by an Australian library, which got the public to proofread scanned texts, and found many people competing to make the most changes.

Thanks to Margaret Cooter