Thursday, September 27, 2012

B - Open access publishing models

Morgan C, Campbell B, Teleen T. The role of the academic journal publisher and open access publishing models. International Studies Perspectives 2012;13(3):228-234
(doi: 10.1111/insp..2012.13.issue-3/issuetoc)

This article explores the role and value of the academic journal publisher as paradigms of open access gain momentum and challenge the standards of paid subscription models. The two main versions of open access publishing currently at large - gold and green - pose a challenge to the user-pays models that have served as a foundation of the business since its inception.

B - Authorship, scholarship and ergonomics

Smith DR. Authorship, scholarship and ergonomics. Le Travail Humain 2012;72(4):397-403

Authorship represents a contentious issue for modern academics, researchers and journal editors. In recent years there has been an alarming rise in publications with significant numbers of authors. Various methods have now been proposed for establishing author credit, although no Uniform Requirements have yet been agreed upon. Regardless of the method which is ultimately chosen to address this issue, openness, transparency and fairness in authorship clearly need to return to the forefront of publishing and scientific ethics.

B - History of citation-based research

Smith DR. Impact factors, scientometrics and the history of citation-based research. Scientometrics 2012;92(2):419-427
(doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0685-x)

This article provides an overview of some key historical events of relevance to the impact factor since Garfield had proposed it over half a century ago. History has seen journal impact factors rise to become one of the most popular bibliometric product, and are one of the most controversial topics of the field. The author suggests that this debate will probably continue for a long time.

B - A protocol to report plagiarism

Shamim T. Serious thoughts about plagiarism in India. Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia 2012;6(3):191
(doi: 10.4103/1658-354X.101191)

It is the prime duty of authors and editors to take strong decisions to tackle plagiarism at the earliest to avoid unethical publishing. The author of this editorial suggests a protocol to report plagiarism in published articles to which authors should adhere.;year=2012;volume=6;issue=3;spage=191;epage=191;aulast=Shamim

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

B - Predatory open access publishers

Beall J. Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature 2012;489:179

Predatory publishers are those publishing counterfeit journals to exploit the author-pays open access model. They set websites that closely resemble those of legitimate online publishers, and publish journals of very low quality. Only after the paper is accepted and published, and copyright assigned, the authors are invoiced for the fees. The research community should use social networks such as Connotea and Mendeley to identify and share information on those publishers.

Monday, September 17, 2012

B - Identifying attractive research fields for new scientists

Akritidis L, Katsaros D, Bozanis P. Identifying attractive research fields for new scientists. Scientometrics 2012;91(3):869-894
(doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0646-4)

In this article authors attempted to identify the research fields that could be attractive to a scientist prior to the beginning of his/her scientific career by combining the characteristics of attractive research areas and the new scholars. Conclusions showed that not all trendy research areas were suitable for new scientists but they were also interested in not emerging scientific fields.

B - Medical social networks use in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Masic I, Sivic S, Pandza H. Social networks in medical education in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Materia Socio Medica 2012;24(3):162-164
(doi: 10.5455/msm.2012.24.162-164)

The aim of this paper is to investigate to what extent and how effectively the Internet is used today by students of biomedical faculties in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the implications of social networks in education of students and health professionals as well. Results showed that while students enthusiastically embraced these opporunities, this is not much the case with health care professionals in practice.

Friday, September 14, 2012

B - Honorary authorship and contribution-specific index

Kovacs J. Honorary authorship epidemic in scholarly publications? How the current use of citation-based evaluative metrics make (pseudo)honorary authors from honest contributors of every multi-author article? Journal of Medical Ethics 2012 August 3 (Epub)
(doi: 10.1136/medethics-2012-100568)

In this paper attention is drawn to the unfair and discriminatory current use of citation-based metrics, that is similarly applied to authors of single-author papers and to contributors of multi-author papers. The author's proposal is that in case of multi-author articles, authors should be required to assign a numeric value to their degree of contribution. In this way, a contribution-specific index of each contributor for each citation metric could be created.

Monday, September 10, 2012

N - Elsevier ethics resources

Elsevier has launched a new resource on research and publication ethics, aimed at young researchers. The website ( includes an ethics toolkit, a useful list of resources, testimonials and interviews, and a quiz. Elsevier also maintains a Publishing Ethics Resource Kit (PERK).

Friday, September 07, 2012

B - Open access versus subscription journals

Bj├Ârk B-C, Solomon D. Open access versus subscription journals: a comparison of scientific impact. BMC Medicine 2012;10:73
(doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-10-73)

The aim of this study was to compare the scientific impact of open access (OA) journals with subscription journals, controlling for journal age, the country of the publisher, discipline and (for OA publishers) their business model. Results showed that OA indexed journals in Web of Science and/or Scopus were approaching the same scientific impact and quality as subscription journals, particularly in biomedicine and for journals funded by article processing charges.

B - A look at medical journal editors

Wong VS, Callaham ML. Medical journal editors lacked familiarity with scientific publication issues despite training and regular exposure. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2012;65(3):247-252
(doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.08.003)

One hundred eighty-three editors of major clinical medical journals were electronically surveyed (response rate, 52%) to determine their demographic, training, potential source of conflict of interest (COI), and familiarity with ethical standards. Although most editors reported training in medical editing topics and saw ethical issues regularly, their knowledge of four common and well-disseminated publication ethics topics (authorship, COI, peer review, and plagiarism) appeared poor.

Thursday, September 06, 2012

B - The inevitability of open access

Lewis DW. The inevitability of open access. College & Research Libraries 2012;73(5):493-506

Using methods described by business theorist Clayton Christensen, this study suggests that gold open access, where all the articles of a journal are available at the time of publication, could account for 50% of the scholarly journal articles between 2017 and 2021, and 90% of articles as soon as 2020 and more conservatively by 2025.

B - Editorial ethical aspects

Masic I. Ethical aspects and dilemmas of preparing, writing and publishing of the scientific papers in the biomedical journals. Acta Informatica Medica 2012;20(3):141-148
(doi: 10.5455/aim.2012.20.141.148)

In this paper the author discusses about preparing and submitting manuscripts - scientific, research, professional papers, reviews, and case reports. Issues are described from his perspective as an editor-in-chief of several bomedical journals, covering ethical aspects of authorship, conflict of interest, copyright, plagiarism, and duplicate publication. He also discusses about important ethical dilemmas.

B - To be an editor is to live dangerously

Van Der Weyden MB. On being the Editor of the Medical Journal of Australia: Living dangerously. Mens Sana Monographs 2012;10(1):150-157
(doi: 10.4103/0973-1229.91295)

Editorial independence is crucial for viability of a journal and editors have many masters - the public, the readers, the authors, and the owners.Editors are exposed to a wide range of opinions as to what should and should not be published. Their decision making is sometimes exposed to undue pressure by clinical groups. In addition, social media facilitates this manipulation.;year=2012;volume=10;issue=1;spage=150;epage=157;aulast=Van

Wednesday, September 05, 2012

B - Ending honorary authorship

Greenland P, Fontanarosa PB. Ending honorary authorship. Science 2012;337:1019
(doi: 10.1126/science.1224988)

Academic institutions, funders, and publishers are exploring new ways to clarify authorship attribution, and many journals have updated their policies on authorship and now require disclosure of specific contributions to discourage honorary authorship. Research institutions should also develop and promulgate clear statements in their research policies about the importance of upholding ethical standards of authorship.

Monday, September 03, 2012

B - Science writers should not fear jargon

Quirk T. Writers should not fear jargon. Nature 2012;487:407

Specialized terms capture the complexity and specificity of scientific concepts. The truth tends to be complicated, and jargon offers its most obvious peek: compression. Researchers use complex language for a specific purpose, and science writers should be clear about what those reasons are. The author, a science writer, offers examples of what can be lost when jargon is not used. He believes that people seem to resent not just specialized language, but any language that requires a large degree of labour to understand, appreciate and use.

B - Quality of peer review in biomedical journals

Gasparyan AY, Kitas GD. Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals. Croatian Medical Journal 2012;53(4):386-389
(doi: 10.3325/cmj.2012.53.386)

Evidence supporting peer review as a guarantor of the quality of biomedical publications is currently lacking. Its outcomes are largely dependent on the credentials of the reviewers. Some experts are in favor of formal education and courses on peer review for all those who will be involved in science writing and reviewing. Universities and learned associations as well may take lead in organizing education activities.

B - New COPE guidelines

Wager E, Kleinert S. Cooperation between research institutions and journals on research integrity cases: guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Acta Informatica Medica 2012;20(3):136-140
(doi: 10.5455/aim.2012.20.136-140)

It is important for institutions and journals to communicate and collaborate effectively on all aspects of research and publication integrity. Recognising the important role that institutions have in investigating cases of suspected misconduct, but also the difficulties that sometimes arise when journals and institutions try to work together and share information on such cases, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has developed guidelines for cooperation between research institutions and journals on research integrity cases, also available at COPE website (