Tuesday, January 05, 2016

B - Online plain English resources

Gilliver S. Online plain English and readability resources. Medical Writing 2015;24(1):20-2

B - Medical journalism

Whelan J. Medical journalism: another way to write about science. Medical Writing 2015; 24(4):219-21
(doi: 10.1179/2047480615Z.000000000327)                                                       

B - Monitoring the transition to open access

Jubb M, Goldstein S, Amin M, et al. Monitoring the transition to open access. A report for the Universities UK Open Access Co-ordination Group. Research Information Network August 2015; 105 p.

Reliable indicators should be gathered on key features of the transition to open access (OA) in the UK. The findings presented in the report from this study are a first attempt at generating such indicators covering five sets of issues: OA options available to authors; accessibility; usage; financial sustainability for universities; and financial sustainability for learned societies.

B - Interdisciplinary research

Van Noorden R. Interdisciplinary research by the numbers. Nature 2015 September 16;525(7569):306-7
(doi: 10.1038/525306a)

Interdisciplinary work is considered crucial by scientists, policy-makers and funders. This study reveals the extent and impact of research that bridges disciplines.The fraction of paper references that point to work in other disciplines is increasing in both the natural and the social sciences. And although papers that combine very disparate fields tend to have fewer citations, interdisciplinary work can have broad societal and economic impacts that are not captured by citations.

B - Research impact assessment models and methods

Milat AJ, Bauman AE, Redman S. A narrative review of research impact assessment models and methods. Health Research Policy and Systems 2015;13:18
(doi: 10.1186/s12961-015-0003-1)

The purpose of this narrative literature review is to synthesize evidence that describes processes and conceptual models for assessing policy and practice impacts of public health research. The literature is characterised by an over reliance on bibliometric methods to assess research impact. Future impact assessment processes could be strengthened by routinely engaging the end-users of research in interviews and assessment processes.

B - Academic misconduct

Hvistendahl M. China pursues fraudsters in science publishing. Science 2015;350(6264):1015
(doi: 10.1126/science.350.6264.1015)

China’s main basic research agency is cracking down on scientists who used fake peer reviews to publish papers, demanding that serious offenders return research funding. Since 2012 scores of authors, many of them Chinese, have been snagged in a peer-review scandal involving papers published in international journals. Journals discovered that authors provided email addresses to accounts controlled by the perpetrators, and then reviewed their own work.

Monday, January 04, 2016

B - Making the most of peer review

Slavov N. Point of view: making the most of peer review. eLIFE  2015 Nov 11;4:e12708
(doi: 10.7554/eLIFE.12708)

Many of the legitimate concerns about papers raised on blogs and other platforms are being ignored by journals. Journals should publish referee reports, and referees should be encouraged to sign their reports. Journals should also consider non-anonymous post-publication comments submitted to certain platforms within a certain time after the paper has been published.


B - Build digital democracy

Helbing D, Pournaras E. Society: build digital democracy. Nature  2015 Nov 5;527(7576):33-4.
(doi: 10.1038/527033a)

Open sharing of data that are collected with smart devices would empower citizens and create jobs, say the authors of this article. A research team has started to create a distributed, privacy-preserving 'digital nervous system' called Nervousnet. It uses the sensor networks that make up the Internet of Things, including those in smartphones, to measure the world around us and to build a collective 'data commons'.

B - The Resource Identification Initiative

Bandrowski A, Brush M, Grethe JS, et al. The Resource Identification Initiative: a cultural shift in publishing. Journal of Comparative Neurology 2016;524(1):8-22
(doi: 10.1002/cne.23913)

The Resource Identification Initiative was launched as a pilot project to improve the reporting standards for research resources in the Methods sections of articles and thereby improve identifiability and scientific reproducibility. The pilot engaged over 25 biomedical journal editors from most major publishers, as well as scientists and funding officials. Authors were asked to include Research Resource Identifiers (RRIDs) in their articles prior to publication for three resource types: antibodies, model organisms, and tools (i.e., software and databases). RRIDs are assigned by an authoritative database.