Monday, July 29, 2013

B - Quality of reports on RCT's in Iranian journals

Nojomi M, Ramezani M, Ghafari-Anvar A. Quality of reports on randomized controlled trials published in Iranian journals: application of the new version of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT). Archives of Iranian Medicine 2013;16(1):20-22

The objective of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) criteria is to provide a guideline for authors to improve the reporting of their trails. This study evaluated clinical trial reports by national peer-reviewed Iranian journals between 2008 and 2010. Their quality needs significant improvement as the majority did not adhere to CONSORT guidelines.

B - Peer review: past, present and future

Munishwar NG . Peer review: past, present and future. Current Science 2013;105(2):159-161

A better appreciation of the respective roles of authors, reviewers, and editors is desirable for a good publication to emerge. Over the years, peer review has taken many shapes and continues to evolve. This article outlines the various facets of the peer review system, outlining its current shape.

B - Publishing function

Singleton A. Publishing - is our love here to stay... Learned Publishing 2013;26:155-156
(doi: 10.1087/320130301)

The author examines present challenges existing to academic publishers and any kind of corporate publishing, such as: potential technological obsolence, legitimacy of publishers' role and even of the "product" that they have been responsible for, and the rise of new systems with or without supporting business models. Journals are not principally a "product" but part of the process of scholarship and science; they are the expression of and for a community.

Monday, July 22, 2013

B - Prescribed practices of authorship

Bošnjak L, Marušić A. Prescribed practices of authorship: review of codes of ethics from professional bodies and journal guidelines across disciplines. Scientometrics 2012;93(3):751-763
(doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0773-y)

The lack of and variety of authorship definitions in journal and professional organizations across scientific disciplines may be confusing for researchers and lead to poor authorship practices. In this study the prevalence of authorship statements, their specificity and tone, and contributions required for authorship were assessed in selected scientific journals and codes of ethics from professional organizations.

B - Impact factor distortions

Alberts B. Impact factor distortions. Science 2013;340(6134):787
(doi: 10.1126/science.1240319)

This Editorial presents a statement on the misuse and overuse of the impact factor, the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). It aims to stop the use of the journal impact factor in judging an individual scientist's work, and provides a list of specific actions to be taken by funding agencies, institutions, publishers, researchers, and the organizations that supply metrics.

B - Predatory scholarly publishing

Vardi MY. Predatory scholarly publishing. Communications of the ACM 2012;55(7):5
(doi: 10.1145/2209249.2209250)

Scholarly publishing is a very unique business, in which there are several parties: publishers, research libraries, authors, editors and reviewers. The author states that the partnership that once existed between the scholarly community and commercial publishers is broken. Commercial publishers are driven by profits, which creates a conflict of interest between publishers and authors. The future of scholarly publishing belongs to association publishing, where all the participants of the publishing business share commitment to scholarship.

B - Peer review: nuts and bolts

Voice of Young Science network. Peer review: the nuts and bolts (Standing up for science; 3). 12 July 2012; 26 p.
Produced with the help of over 40 early career researchers, editors, journalist and grant bodies' representatives, this guide will help early career researchers understand how the peer review process works, some of the limitations of peer review and the role of peer review in society. 

Thursday, July 18, 2013

B - Evaluations by peer review

B - Bornmann L. Evaluations by peer review in science. Science Reviews e-pub 31 January 2013
(doi: 10.1007/s40362-012-0002-3)

Nowadays, it is recommended for major evaluation contexts to use an informed peer review process where the peers are informed by bibliometric indicators. This review gives a short overview of the practice of peerreview and its linking with bibliometrics. "Qualitative" peer review and "quantitative" tecniques of bibliometrics should be seen not as competing processes in scientific evaluation, but as two options with which to view a scientific work from different perspectives.

B - Acta Informatica Medica indexed in PubMed

Masic I. Acta Informatica Medica is indexed in PubMed and archived in PubMed Central. Acta Informatica Medica 2013;21(1):4-6
(doi: 10.5455/AIM.2013.21.4-6)    

 Acta Informatica Medica journal has been accepted for archiving in PubMed Central from 2011 onward. The journal started in 1993 as the official journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia and Herzegovina. During the last 3 years, it has been included in almost all prestigious online databases, including PubMed, Scopus and EMBASE. The 20th volume of the journal is fully international, with papers from 18 countries.

B - Altmetrics for institutional repositories

Konkiel S, Scherer D. New opportunities for repositories in the age of altmetrics. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2013;39(4):22-26

By reporting altmetrics (alternative metrics based on online activity) for their content, institutional repositories can add value to existing metrics – and prove their relevance and importance in an age of growing cutbacks to library services. This article discusses the metrics that repositories currently deliver and how altmetrics can supplement existing usage statistics to provide a broader interpretation of research-output impact for the benefit of authors, library-based publishers and repository managers, and university administrators alike.