Thursday, May 26, 2011
This study describes shortcomings of the peer review process and provides situational, personal, social, and ethical factors influencing reviewers' and editors' behaviour. Editors need to know of potential influences on reviewers and also on themselves. Some data is offered which illustrates the problem and suggests potential solutions. Journals with large editorial boards could consider using a small team to nominate and evaluate reviewers, make decisions and communicate with the authors. Reviewing might be improved through the education and training of postgraduate students.
This study examined the quality of peer review in three scholarly nursing journals from the perspectives of authors and editors. In particular, it examined the extent to which manuscript reviews provided constructive guidance for authors to further develop their work for publication, and for editors to make informed and sound decisions on the disposition of manuscripts. A majority of authors agreed that peer reviews provided constructive guidance, and a majority of editors agreed that reviews provided adequate rationale.
This study shows how a medical journal's influence can be calculated by using citations obtained from Google Scholar and other methods even though the journal is not covered by any citation databases. 580 articles published in the Medical Journal of Malaysia (MJM) between 2004 and 2008 served as sample.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
IEEE (the world’s largest professional association dedicated to advancing technological innovation and excellence for the benefit of humanity) has developed a suite of tools that efficiently define, identify, and manage plagiarism complaints. The combined use of these three essential tools (policy guidelines, a plagiarism detection system, and an enhanced resolution service) has been extremely effective and has made possible for the IEEE editorial staff to manage all plagiarism complaints.
Librarians can play a dynamic role in the development of the open access (OA) landscape by familiarizing themselves with government funding initiatives, OA publishing models, institutional OA funds and policies, and institutional repositories. The article provides examples of how librarians can incorporate OA issues into pre-existing librarian roles.
The principles of evidence-based practice can also be used in the field of journalism. An application of one of the basic approaches used in evidence-based practice, PICO - that stands for Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome - can be applicable in biomedical journalism, i.e. to study whether single-blind review is as good as double-blind review in a small scientific community.
The publication considers and weighs the evidence on the OA citation impact advantage. It suggests a strong OA citation impact advantage, with a download differential found across studies averaging at least 100%, followed by a citation impact differential of between 25-250% in favour of open access for the majority of studies, and particularly for larger studies, with a minority of studies finding no effect. Possible explanations for these anomalies include small sample size (one study refers to an a statistically insignificant OA impact advantage), disciplinary citation patterns, and failure to allow sufficient time to observe the citation impact difference. As the author points out - no studies found a citation disadvantage for OA.
The study examines whether there is a direct correlation between multiple open access (OA) availability of journal articles and the citation advantage by collecting data of OA article appearance and citations in 20 top library and information science (LIS) journals published in 2006 (total number 875). Multiple OA availability refers to multi-locations and multi-versions of an OA article. The analysis demonstrates a statistical significance for a correlation between OA status of LIS articles and a positive impact on their citation account.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
The article considers whether open access (OA) publishing provides a way to improve the visibility of research outputs from smaller countries. A search of Slovenia's bibliographic database was carried out to identify all biomedical journals and those which are OA. None out of 18 Slovenian OA journals has an impact factor. The solution could be to reduce the number of journals and to increase their quality by encouraging scientists to publish their best articles in them.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Few studies show the impact of OA in the visibility of journals covering all scientific fields and geographical regions.This article presents analyses on the degree of proliferation of OA journals in a data sample of about 1,700 active journals indexed in Scopus. The results show that the benefits of OA in term of impact are to be found on the green road (authors publishing in a traditional journal and then self-archiving their post-prints in their institutional repository).
Using a randomized controlled trial of open access (OA) publishing, involving 36 academic journals in the sciences, social sciences, and humanities, the effects of free access on article downloads and citations are reported. OA articles received significantly more downloads (almost a doubling) and reached a broader audience than subscription-access articles within the first year after publication, yet they were not cited more frequently within 3 years. The author concludes that the real benefit of free access to the scientific literature is to those outside the core research communities, who consume, but rarely contribute to, the corpus of literature.
The purpose of the study was to compare the content and quality of statistical and scientific reviews of manuscripts submitted to Nursing Research. Scientific reviews were rated as more comprehensive, but most did not evaluate statistical aspects. Statistical reviews were more likely to identify fatal flaws, were generally rated higher in overall usefulness to the editor in making a decision on whether to publish, and to authors for improving a manuscript. Both reviews are complementary.
Results from a questionnaire are presented: over 400 researchers in 12 countries responded ranking 7 article characteristics and rating 16 article profiles. After article topic, the next most highly ranked characteristics were online accessibility and source of article. There were significant differences in ranking by discipline and geographic location.
Friday, May 06, 2011
The event is free, and all are welcome to attend. No ticket or advance booking is required. Doors will open at 5.30pm, and seats will be allocated on a first-come-first-served basis.The discussion kicks off at 6pm, and is scheduled to finish at 7.30pm.