Tuesday, January 25, 2011

B - Impact factor of open access journals

Giglia E. The Impact Factor of open access journals: data and trends. In: ELPUB 2010 International Conference on Electronic Publishing. Helsinki (Finland), 16-18 June 2010 This work is aimed at testing the impact factor of open access (OA) journals, to verify the hypothesis that unrestricted access might turn into more citations, that is good impact factor indexes. It is mainly focused on the JCR 2008 Science edition because of its largest coverage of OA journals (about 5%). The collected data showed that the performance of OA journals is quite good in terms of citations. These preliminary data might be useful to further comparisons and in-depth analysis.

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

B - Scholarly communication - can we have our name back?

Singleton A. Editorial. Scholarly communication - can we have our name back? Learned Publishing 2011;24(1):3-4
(doi: 10.1087/20110101)

It discusses the appropriateness of the use of the term "scholarly communication" to which over the last years it has been giving a meaning that is not the proper one. The properly defined term is much wider than the modern quasi-definition implies. As a misnomer, it is used, for example, to talk about how libraries can persuade authors to retain copyright in any of their works or to deposit them in institutional repositories. "Communication" involves "imparting or exchanging information" and where is any aspect of it in retaining copyright or putting in a repository? Publishers themselves are usually involved in only a part of the formal communication system and sometimes "communication" is not the most important part of what they do.

Friday, January 14, 2011

B - The manuscript reviewing process

Bornmann L, Daniel H-D. The manuscript reviewing process: empirical research on review request, review sequences, and decision rules in peer review. Library & Information Science Research 2010;32:5-12
(doi: 10.1016/j.lisr.2009.07.010)

This study investigates which review requests are assigned by editors to external reviewers, which sequences of review steps typically occurr, and which rules are used by editors to decide whether to accept or reject a manuscript for publication. It is based on 1,899 manuscripts, reviewed for the year 2000 by the Angewandte Chemie International Edition editors. The majority of the manuscripts was accepted for publication only if it had been positively assessed by two independent reviewers.

Monday, January 10, 2011

N - New journal: Scientific Reports

Nature Publishing Group (NPG) will launch a new open-access online science journal in summer 2011. The new journal, called Scientific Reports, will accept primary research articles across any of the natural sciences, divided into four themes: biology, chemistry, physics, earth sciences. Authors who have had papers rejected by other NPG journals can use an automated transfer service to submit their articles for consideration by Scientific Reports.

Wednesday, January 05, 2011

B - The predictive validity of peer review

Benda WGG, Engels TCE. The predictive validity of peer review: a selective review of the judgmental forecasting qualities of peers, and implications for innovation in science. International Journal of Forecasting 2011;27:166-82
(doi:10.1016/j.ijforecast.2010.03.003)

Some form of judgmental assessment is implied in the peer review process, often forecasting the impact of the work. The article investigates what the available data on the predictive validity of peer review can add to the understanding of judgmental forecasting. The review part of the article focuses on: manuscript peer review, its reliability and its predictive validity; group-based peer review and its predictive validity; and the tension between peer review and innovation. Two proposals for enhancing the likelihood of innovative works are described.

B - Peer review - Beyond the call of duty?

Griffiths P, Baveye PC. Peer review - Beyond the call of duty? International Journal of Nursing Studies 2011;48(1):1-2
(doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.12.013)

Peer reviewing is a crucial component of the publishing process. Unfortunately, a high proportion, probably a majority, of review invitations are declined. The article identifies the outstanding problems and the need to find ways to convince researchers to peer review manuscripts more often. It suggests some options to raise the level of visibility and recognition of peer reviews. For example, scientometric indexes could include some measure to evaluate individuals' reviewing performance and impact. These data could be used to acknowledge and reward the researchers' efforts when judging the extent and quality of a scientific contribution.

N - Friends in open places

When peer reviewers are suggested by a paper's author(s), the feedback is likely to be more positive than when the journal editors chose the reviewers. That may not be surprising, but a new study published in PLoS ONE has found evidence of this occurring even when an open peer review system is used. The journal looked at was Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union. On Nature's The Great Beyond blog the paper's author, Lutz Bornmann, based at the Max Planck Society in Berlin, said: "The danger is really that an author suggested their best friends. Alternatively – and more charitably – the reviewers selected by authors could be in a better position to know a good result in their field when they see one, compared to those selected by journal editors."

N - Pubmed Author ID

The US National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), part of the National Library of Medicine (NLM), is addressing the issue of author name variation within PubMed. A new system, called PubMed Author ID, will require authors to register and to identify their research articles in PubMed, thus allowing NCBI to link alternate names and spellings. The anticipated launch for PubMed Author ID is in mid-2011.

N - ORCID Initiative

The ORCID Initiative (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) has been formed by a group of publishing and research organizations with the mission of resolving author-name ambiguity. It is building a registry of unique identifiers for individual researchers, with an open and transparent linking mechanism with other author ID schemes. The aim is to make ORCID an industry standard that will clarify researchers’ output, enhancing the scientific process and helping with research funding, as well as helping to create new research services.

Tuesday, January 04, 2011

B - Abstract preparation

Clarann Weinert SC. Are all abstracts created equal?? Applied Nursing Research 2010;23(2):106-9
(doi:10.1016/j.apnr.2008.06.003)

The preparation of a strong, convincing abstract is crucial for each investigator or clinical scholar. The scientific community reads more abstracts than full texts. The article explores each critical stage of abstract development: planning, drafting, reviewing, peer reviewing, editing, and packaging. It also gives hints on developing the six key elements of a structured abstract -background, purpose, sample, methods, results, and implications.