Tuesday, July 17, 2012

B - Pricing principles by open access publishers

Bj├Ârk B. Solomon D. Pricing principles used by scholarly open access publishers. Learned Publishing 2012;25(2):132-137
(doi: 10.1087/20120207)
The article processing charge (APC) is currently the primary method of funding professionally open access (OA) peer reviewed journals. In the article the pricing principles of 77 OA publishers publishing over 1,000 journals using APCs were studied and classified. The most common pricing method is a single fixed fee, that can be either the same for all of a publisher's journals or individually determined for each journal. Among the big OA publishers, the individual journal pricing seems to be the dominant mode.

B - Medical publishing and drug industry

Sismondo S. Medical publishing and the drug industry: is medical science for sale? Learned Publishing 2012;25(1):7-15
(doi: 10.1087/20120102)

Drug company articles placed in medical journals are often written under the names of independent medical researchers in order to gain their largest scientific impact and market value. Pharmaceutical company statisticians, reviewers, and key company scientists are only sometimes acknowledged. In the article this publishing process is described and ways in which it might be addressed are discussed.

B - Outsourcing of editorial processing

Sellwood S. Editorial processing: to outsource or not? Learned Publishing 2012;25(3):225-230
(doi: 10.1087/20120310)

This article examines the reasons why outsourcing the editorial assistant function might be of benefit to a journal, either on a temporary or permanent solution. It also examines the practical considerations of entering into such an arrangement - what should be looked for in a partner company and what can be expected from such a relationship. Finally, it offers a case study, i.e. the experience of the Journal of Pathology, who have outsourced their editorial assistant role for over four years. This would allow publishers and societies to make informed choices.

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

B - Publication guidelines

Larson EL, Cortazal M. Publication guidelines need widespread adoption. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2012;65(3):239-246

This study aims at describing the development and adoption of general publication guidelines for various study designs, at providing example of guidelines adapted for specific topics, and at recommending next steps. These ones include: increasing use of available guidelines and their adoption among journals, educating peer reviewers on their use, and incorporating guideline use into the curriculum of medical, nursing, and public health sectors.

B - Citation biases

Radicchi F, Castellano C. Testing the fairness of citation indicators for comparison across scientific domains: the case of fractional citation counts. Journal of Informetrics 2012;6(1):121-130
(doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2011.09.002)

The use of raw citation counts is generally misleading, especially when applied to cross-disciplinary comparisons, since the average number of citations is strongly dependent on the scientific discipline of reference of the article. The authors present a statistical method aimed at estimating the effectiveness of numerical indicators in eliminating citation biases. The method is simple to implement and can be easily generalized to various scenarios.

B - Open access debate

Lucibella M. Bill to kill open access sparks debate. APS News 2012;21(3):1-6

The article reports on whether scientific articles funded by US Federal agencies should be publicly available on the web. It presents publishers' stance about this issue and discusses how journal costs could be met. It ends by describing the England-based "Faculty of 1000", an online subscription service, which will be starting up its own free, open access journal which will freely publish scientific papers with a peer review process after publication with all commentary open and visible.

B - Multiple authorship

Wyatt PJ. Commentary: too many authors, too few creators. Physics Today April 2012:9

The author discusses interesting issues regarding multiple authorship of articles written by authors in, or associated with,  academia, government laboratories and industry in the USA. Over the years the number of authors associated with each published article has greatly increased; single-author papers has become relatively rare. Many problems of irrilevant authors arise with the journals themselves, as only a few of them ask the correspondence author to confirm that the listed authors all contributed to the paper.

B - Scientific fraud in China

Hao X. Fraud takes the shine off rising star. Physics World September 2011:12-13

Reent cases of scientific plagiarism and fraud in China have cast a shadow over the rise of science in China, and have raised questions about why the country has not done more to tackle misconduct. Many Chinese scientists state that the root cause of this lies in a system that awards grants and prizes based largely on personal relations rather than on merit.

B - The language of science

Mining the language of science. University of Cambridge, Research Features Epub November 18, 2011

Scientists are developing a computer that can read vast amounts of scientific literature, make connections between facts, and develop hypotheses. A new developed tool, based on text-mining technology, is aimed  at analysing literature review in cancer risk assessment of chemicals.

Saturday, July 07, 2012

B - A science editor about authors' frustrations

An interesting interview with Prof. Allen Moore has just been published in Wiley-Blackwell Publishing News. He says: "Science is a weird profession. We seek rejection. Even when we get our work published, we are told what is wrong with it. It is important to remember that every time an author submits a paper they expect it to be published, not rejected. Criticism is fine, but it has to be tempered with an understanding of the frustration authors feel. This is why I think it is important that editors remain active scientists. I too have my papers rejected. I too get frustrated when journals sit on manuscripts without making a decision. I too get frustrated when editors simply seem to count positive and negative comments to make a decision on a paper. I’m on the side of the authors!" http://blogs.wiley.com/publishingnews/2012/07/02/your-starter-for-ten%E2%80%A6an-interview-with-professor-allen-moore-head-of-the-department-of-genetics-university-of-georgia-athens-usa-and-editor-of-ecology-and-evolution-a-new-open-access-jour/

Thursday, July 05, 2012

B - Impact factor and journal certification

Vanclay JK. Impact factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification? Scientometrics 2012;92(2):211-238
The author discusses several weaknesses of the impact factor, the ways to amend some of them, and reveals indications that the scientific community seeks and needs better certification of journal procedures to improve the quality of published science. Journal editors should collaborate to introduce a journal certification system as a comprehensive certification of editorial and review procedures could help ensure adequate procedures to detect duplicate and fraudulent submissions.
(doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0561-0)

B - PeerJ: a new idea for open access publishing

Van Noorden R. Journal offers flat fee for "all you can publish". Nature 14 June 2012;486(166)
(doi: 10.1038/486166a)

An open access venture called PeerJ announced its launch on June 12, 2012. It aims to drive down the costs of research publishing. PeerJ asks its authors for only a one-off fee to secure a lifetime membership that will allow them to publish free, peer reviewed research papers. Despite the low publication cost, its founders (one of them was publisher of PLos ONE) assure that articles will be peer reviewed for scientific validity.

B - ORCID: authors' identifier system

Butler D. Scientists: your number is up. Nature 31 May 2012;485:564
The Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) has been launched this year. It is an identifier system that will distinguish between authors who share the same name. It aims at reliably attributing research outputs to their true author by assigning every scientist in the world a machine-readable, 16-digit unique digital identifier. If ORCID takes off, it could increase the precision and breadth of scientific metrics and help in developing new analyses of social networks.

Wednesday, July 04, 2012

B - How to enhance quality and transparency of industry-sponsored clinical research

Mansi BA, Clark J, David FS et al. Ten recommendations for closing the credibility gap in reporting industry-sponsored clinical research: a joint journal and pharmaceutical industry perspective. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2012;87(5):424-29
(doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2012.02.009)

A list of top ten recommendations outline several opportunities to enhance the quality, transparency and credibility of industry-sponsored clinical research publications in general, regardless of funding source. This list is intended to serve as a call for action for all stakeholders - authors, journal editors, research sponsors, and others. It was issued by attendees to a roundtable of journal editors and industry representatives, organized by the Medical Publishing Insights and Practices (MPIP) initiative.

B - Developing a societal impact factor

Niederkrotenthaler T, Dorner TE, Maier M. Development of a practical tool to measure the impact of publications on the society based on focus group discussions with scientists. BioMed Central Public Health 2011;11:588
(doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-588)

This qualitative study presents the development of a practical tool to assess the societal impact of publications, that would contribute to a more comprehensive evaluation oof scientific research. Focus group discussions with scientists suggested that this societal impact factor should consider the effect of the publication in a wide set of non-scientific areas, but also the motivation behind the publication, and efforts by the authors to translate their findings into societal action.

B - Alternative solution for copyright

Contreras JL. Wait for it...Commons, copyright and the private (re)ordering of scientific publishing. Social Science Research Network March 4, 2012

In this paper, the author critiques various open access strategies related to copyright protection and assignment, and he proposes an alternative private ordering solution. Under this proposal, research institutions would develop and adopt publication agreements that do not transfer copyright ownership to publishers, but grant publishers a one-year exclusive period in which to publish a work. This limited period of exclusivity should enable publishers to recoup their publishing costs and a profit through subscription revenues.

B - Updated edition of EASE Guidelines

The 2012 edition of EASE Guidelines for Authors and Translators of Scientific Articles is available in 20 languages. It includes some new material, such as practical tips for junior researchers. Besides, we support the global initiative Healthcare Information For All by 2015 ( www.HIFA2015.org ) by advising authors to make abstracts of their papers highly informative, reliable, and easily understandable.
If journal editors wish to help us spread the word about EASE Guidelines, they can mention them in Instructions to Authors, using a formula like:
Before submission, follow EASE Guidelines for Authors and Translators, freely available in many languages at www.ease.org.uk/publications/author-guidelines . Adherence should increase the chances of acceptance of submitted manuscripts.
We'd greatly apppreciate also any other help in popularization of EASE Guidelines among scientists, science translators, and editors. 

Tuesday, July 03, 2012

B - Can tweets predict citations?

Eysenbach G. Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2011;13(4):e123
(doi: 10.2196/jimr.2012)

Tweets can predict highly cited articles within the first three days of article publication. Social impact measures as the so-called twimpact factor, based on tweets, are proposed to complement traditional citation metrics. Tweetations should be primarily seen as a metric to measure public interest in a specific topic, while citations are primarily a metric for scholarly impact.

B - The accessibility quotient (AQ) of open access

Willmott MA, Dunn KH, Duranceau EF. The Accessibility Quotient: a new measure of open access. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication 2012;1(1):eP1025

This study presents a new measure, the Accessibility Quotient (AQ). It offers a concise assessment of accessibility of peer reviewed research produced by an individual or group (authors, departments, disciplines, or universities) by combining three measures - price, quality, and shareability. The paper reports how the AQ is calculated, how it can be used in faculty outreach, and why it is useful by leading to more open access to research.

B - Citations and ethics

Reedijk J. Citations and ethics. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 2012;51(4):828-30
(doi: 10.1002/anie.201107554)

Nowadays fabrication or engineering of journal Impact Factors and citations in general have been observed and will probably increase. They may be affected by particular editorial strategies, be intentionally or not.  Peer reviewed scientific publications are the basis of scientific evaluations, and they must adhere to the highest ethical standards. These standards should be the same for authors, referees, and editors.

B - Wikipedia: a tool for health promotion

Heilman JM, Kemman E, Bonert M. et al. Wikipedia: a key tool for global public health promotion. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2011;13(1):e14
(doi: 10.2196/jimr.1589)

The paper discusses the intricacies, strengths, and weaknesses of Wikipedia as a source of health information and compares it with other medical wikis. Several examples of partnerships show that it is possible to strenghten its biomedical content and use it as a tool for worldwide health promotion.

Monday, July 02, 2012

B - Predatory publishers and plagiarism

Jansen PA, Forget PM. Predatory publishers and plagiarism prevention. Science 2012;336:1380

A letter referring to a paper describing how s scientist recently published nine articles that largely or entirely duplicated papers written by others. Six of these papers were published in scholarly journals only last year. It is surprising that these papers escaped plagiarism detection tools such as CrossCheck and eBlst. The authors argue that publishers did not use them consciously being accomplices in plagiarism.

B - Open data sharing

Boulton G. Open your minds and share your results. Nature 2012;486:441
(doi: 10.1038/486441a)
An article on the scientific approach to open data. An open approach is the best way to maximize the benefits of research for both scientists and the public. The policy report Science as an Open Enterprise has been just published by the Royal Society of London, requiring that specific raw data should be made available as a condition of publication in biomedicine journals. True openness requires data to be not only accessible, but also intelligible, assessable and reusable.

B - Research reviews in child psychology and psychiatry

Nigg JT. Editorial: Writing (and reading) Research Reviews in child psychology and psychiatry - principles and practice, opportunities and pitfalls. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 2012;53(7):723-25
(doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2012.02575.x)
The author, the Research Reviews Editor for The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (JCPP), describes some kinds of review outlets published by the journal. One of it is the Research Reviews: they are short reviews intended to fill a certain needed niche in one of the journal's fields of interest. As these reviews don't pretend to be comprehensive, they require clear conceptual framing, methodological explanation of how topics and literature are selected for citation and discussion, and skillful recognition of important but not-reviewed aspects of topic literature. Essays in areas in which there is very little current literature, but unusual potential and importance, represent a second type of review.