It is time once again, for our monthly look at the top five most read papers from our journal European Science Editing.
In the top read list for October we have articles dating back over several years, including an Essay on statistical mistakes in biomedical journals from WAME president at the time, Farrokh Habibzadeh, two Original Articles about indexing database stats, and at the top of the list, the excellent and highly recommended peer review card exchange game, and an Essay from 2015 on research and social media.
An interesting set of papers that showcases the range of articles our journal publishes!
The role of social media in the research cycle
Duncan Nicholas
Issue: 41(4) November 2015. Essays
http://europeanscienceediting.eu/articles/the-role-of-social-media-in-the-research-cycle
Different types of social media are being adopted by an increasing number of members within the scientific community, with researchers, publishers, and readers playing important roles in the scientific communication process. Recently, the ability to harness the online presence of articles has given rise to alternative web-based metrics as an indicator of social impact and a measure of community presence to supplement conventional bibliometric methods. This paper summarises the current uses of social media in science, and includes specially conducted interviews with Jon Tennant, a power user of social media and Euan Adie, founder of Altmetric.
A peer review card exchange game
Ružica Tokalić & Ana Marušić
Issue 44(3) August 2018. Original Article
http://europeanscienceediting.eu/articles/a-peer-review-card-exchange-game
Introduction: Peer review aims to ensure the quality of research and help journal editors in the publication process. COST action PEERE, which explores peer review, including its efficiency, transparency and accountability, organised a peer review school endorsed by EASE. We developed a card exchange game based on responsibility and integrity in peer review for a hands-on training session.
Methods: We used the approach for the development of training materials about responsible research and innovation developed by the HEIRRI project, and the principles of the card game for the popularisation of the philosophy of science.
Results: We created 32 card statements about peer review, distributed across 6 domains: Responsiveness, Competence, Impartiality, Confidentiality, Constructive criticism and Responsibility to science. We adapted the instructions for the game and tested the game during the peer review school at the University of Split School of Medicine, Croatia, May 2018. The feedback by the participants was very positive.
Conclusions: The Peer Review Card Exchange Game could be used as an introductory activity for teaching integrity and ethics in peer review training.
The Russian Science Citation Index (RSCI) as a new trend in scientific editing and publishing in Russia
Sergey V Gorin, Anna M Koroleva, and Nadezda A Ovcharenko
Issue: 42(3) August 2016. Original Article
http://europeanscienceediting.eu/articles/the-russian-science-citation-index-rsci-as-a-new-trend-in-scientific-editing-and-publishing-in-russia
Aim: The aim of the study was to provide an overview of the principle issues for the RSCI and assess the characteristics of the journals included.
Methods: We used statistical information freely available through the Scientific Electronic Library (Russia), and also WoS and SCOPUS. Authors analysed 9560 Russian scientific journals currently issued. The best Russian journals were found to be those in physics, astronomy and chemistry.
Results: The study shows the distribution of RSCI journals within academic spheres and among major publishers, noting the low percentage of journals available as both printed and online versions.
Conclusions: The RSCI project is improving scientific editing and publishing in Russia, and the better Russian journals have been grouped in a separate database. It remains unclear whether journals produced by RSCI will be able to enter SCOPUS or WoS. It is also uncertain whether the project will lead to greater numbers of Russian journals indexed in SCOPUS or WoS, or if it will improve scientific editing and publishing in Russia
Gender, age, research experience, leading role and academic productivity of Vietnamese researchers in the social sciences and humanities: exploring a 2008-2017 Scopus dataset
Quan-Hoang Vuong et. al.
Issue: 43(3) August 2017. Original Article
http://europeanscienceediting.eu/articles/gender-age-research-experience-leading-role-and-academic-productivity-of-vietnamese-researchers-in-the-social-sciences-and-humanities-exploring-a-2008-2017-scopus-dataset
Background: Academic productivity has been studied by scholars all round the world for many years. However, in Vietnam, this topic has scarcely been addressed. This research therefore aims at better understanding the correlations between gender, age, research experience, the leading role of corresponding authors, and the total number of their publications in the specific realm of social sciences and humanities.
Methods: The study employed a Scopus dataset with publication profiles of 410 Vietnamese researchers between 2008 and 2017.
Results: Men did not differ from women in academic publications (P=0.827). The proficiency of corresponding authors positively correlated with the number of published papers (rs=0.61, P<0.001 for authors between 40 and 50 years of age).
Conclusion: While scientific output correlated with the author ages and number of articles in which they led, it was not correlated with their gender in Vietnamese social science and humanities authors.
Common statistical mistakes in manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals
Farrokh Habibzadeh
Issue: 39(4) November 2013. Essays
http://europeanscienceediting.eu/articles/common-statistical-mistakes-in-manuscripts-submitted-to-biomedical-journals
Introduction
Statistical methods have rapidly developed over the past decades and become instrumental in data analysis of research articles, so that currently most journals ask the authors to describe in detail the statistical methods used for the analysis of their data in a separate section in the methodology. This is helpful, as it allows the internal validity of the findings presented in the article to be examined. In this review, based on more than 20 years of experience as an editor and reviewer, I will describe the most common mistakes I have encountered in manuscripts submittted to biomedical journals. I found these mistakes with more or less similar frequency in the submissions to both prestigious and small medical journals. Many of these mistakes can also be found in published articles, which means even some editors are not aware of these points.
Comments