Monday, September 22, 2014

B - Wikipedia citations in journal articles

Tohidinasab F, Jamali HR. Why and where Wikipedia is cited in journal articles? Journal of Scientometric Research 2013;2(3):231-238
(doi: 10.4103/2320-0057.135415)

This research aimed to identify the motivations for citation to Wikipedia in scientific papers. Also, the number of citation to Wikipedia, location of citation, type of citing papers, subject of citing and cited articles were determined and compared in different subject fields. Results showed that there are 20 motivations for citing Wikipedia and the most frequent of them are providing general information and definition, facts and figures. Citations to Wikipedia often appear in the introduction or introductory sections of papers. Computer sciences, internet and chemistry are the most cited subjects. The use of Wikipedia in articles is increasing both in terms of quantity and diversity;year=2013;volume=2;issue=3;spage=231;epage=238;aulast=Tohidinasab

B - Science publishing in Russia

Teixeira da Silva JA, Lukatkin AS. Challenges to research, science writing and publishing in Russia. The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology 2013;7(1):66-71

Traditionally, Russian researchers write articles in Russian. They tend to publish articles in a leading Russian journal as it is much easier than to attempt to publish in an English-based journal. This paper provides some perspectives as to the rationale and challenges that Russian scientists face when publishing in high ranked international journals. They are influenced by cultural and structural limitations.

B - The Kardashian index

Hall N. The Kardashian index: a measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists. Genome Biology 2014;15:424
(doi: 10.1186/s13059-014-0424-0)

The author proposes the "Kardashian index" (from the name of one of the most followed people on twitter), a measure of discrepancy between a scientist’s social media profile and publication record based on the direct comparison of numbers of citations and twitter followers. He has compared the numbers of followers that research scientists have on twitter with the number of citations they have for their peer-reviewed work.

B - Publication bias in social sciences

Franco A, Malhotra N, Simonovits G. Publication bias in the social sciences: unlocking the file drawer. Science 2014;345(6203):1502-1505
(doi: 10.1126/science.1255484)

The authors examined every study since 2002 that was funded by TESS (Time-sharing Experiments in the Social Sciences),  a national grants programme adopting a rigorous peer review for proposals submitted. They found a strong relationship between the results of a study and whether it was published, a pattern indicative of publication bias. Selective reporting of scientific findings is often referred to as the "file drawer" problem. Although around half of the total studies in the sample were published, only 20% of those with null results appeared in print. In contrast, about 60% of studies with strong results and 50% of those with mixed results were published What is perhaps most striking is not that so few null results are published, but that so many of them are never even written up (65%).

Friday, September 19, 2014

B - Social media use by medical students

Harrison B, Gill J, Jalali A. Social media etiquette for the modern medical student: a narrative review. International Journal of Medical Students 2014;2(2):64-67

Most medical students worldwide are using various social media platforms (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube) for file sharing, circulation of educational resources and staying connected with peers.  This narrative review examines social media use by medical students, with a concentration on online professionalism and how education on the topic is, or should be, integrated into the world-wide medical school curricula. The research shows that there is a potentially dangerous dichotomy between the online social lives of modern medical students and professionalism requirements of medical career for which they are training.

B - Peer review for RCT

Patel J. Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials. BMC Medicine 2014;12:128
(doi: 10.1186/s12916-014-0128-z)

Innovations in peer review have focused on the process of peer review rather than its quality.  Some types of research, such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs), may lend themselves to a more specialized form of peer review where training and ongoing appraisal and revalidation is provided to individuals who peer review RCTs. Any randomized controlled trial peer reviewed by such a trained peer reviewer could then have a searchable ‘quality assurance’ symbol attached to the published articles and any published peer reviewer reports.

B - Impact factor mania

Casadevall A, Fang FC. Causes for the persistence of impact factor mania. mBio 2014;5(2):e00064-14 
(doi: 10.1128/mBio.00064-14)

Science and scientists are currently afflicted by an epidemic of mania manifested by associating the value of research with the journal where the work is published rather than the content of the work itself. The authors consider the reasons for the persistence of impact factor mania and its pernicious effects on science. They conclude that impact factor mania persists because it confers significant benefits to individual scientists and journals. Various measures to reduce the influence of the impact factor are considered.

B - An example of unethical behaviour

Masic I. A new example of unethical behavior in the academic journal "Medical Archives". Medical Archives 2014;68(4):228-230
(doi: 10.5455/medarh.2014.68.228.230)

A recent case of unethical behaviour by authors who have submitted their article in the Medical Archives is described in this Editorial. The same article was submitted to another journal and then retracted and sent to "Retraction Watch". Considerations on plagiarism and other forms of unethical behaviour in a scientific publication are also expressed.

B - Plagiarism and ethics

Jamali R, Ghazinoory S, Sadeghi M. Plagiarism and ethics of knowledge. Journal of Information Ethics 2014;23(1):101-110
(doi: 10.3172/JIE.23.1.101)

This study aims to investigate whether there is any difference between plagiarism volumes in different fields of study in Iran. Specifically, if there is any significant difference between these statistics among five countries, namely Iran, USA, Turkey, Australia and China. The results show that there was no trace of plagiarism in 6 out of 27 fields under consideration for Iranian papers. Most cases of plagiarism were reported in three scientific fields, with medicine on top of the list. The paper suggest that more frequent instances of plagiarism in Iranian articles are due to the unawareness of the international standards of science writing and editing.

B - Scholarly publishing trends 2014

Smart P. The big picture: scholarly publishing trends 2014. Science Editing 2014;1(2):52-57
(doi: 10.6087/kcse.2014.1.52)

This article considers the changes that have happened recently to the scholarly journal environment, starting with the changes in research and development and the influence of the emerging economies. It then considers the financial models and the serials crisis that led to the movement for more open access to research and greater involvement of the academic community. It looks at the ethical issues that have beset the recent years, and the new technologies that promise more efficient and ethical publishing. There is particular concern about some of the new publishers who are not adhering to established quality control and ethical practices.