Author: Lilian Nassi-calò

The favourable perception of open access increases among researchers

A research conducted by the Nature Publishing Group indicates that the perception of open access (OA) publishing is rapidly changing among researchers. In 2014, 40% of authors who have not published in OA journals declared themselves concerned about the quality of publications, a percentage which fell to 27% in 2015. The NPG supports OA publications and recognizes its importance, publishing 56% of the articles in this format. Read More →

Unpublished results from clinical trials distort medical research

The ClinicalTrials.gov initiative was created with the purpose to establish a platform for recording information on clinical trials conducted by public organizations (research institutes and government agencies) and private (pharmaceutical companies). A recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, however, shows a worrying scenario. Despite the requirement to register clinical trials in a publicly accessible base, a small fraction of them are published in scientific journals, compromising the transparency and applicability of the discoveries. Read More →

Ciência e Saúde Coletiva dedicates issue on the importance of Brazilian Collective Health journals

The journal Ciência e Saúde Coletiva celebrates 20 years of uninterrupted publication and relevant contribution to national, regional and international Public and Collective Health. The July 2015 thematic issue celebrates the most relevant Brazilian publications and provides an overview of the development of the area, which scientifically supported the construction the Brazil’s Unified Health System – SUS. Read More →

Enhancing peer review: guides, tutorials and good practice manuals

The validation of scientific reports before publication is an established practice, whose effectiveness and importance is recognized by authors, publishers, funding agencies and scientific societies around the world, in order to ensure the originality, quality, reliability, integrity and consistency of scholarly literature. What has long been the exclusive prerogative of publishers and editors now relies on innovative initiatives by organizations and societies dedicated to understand and improve the process. Read More →

eLife: an example of improved peer review

The online open access peer reviewed journal eLife publishes articles in biomedicine and life sciences. The nonprofit publication emerged from the ideas of its founders to create a publication model that met the needs of the academic community regarding editorial policy. The journal relies on a staff of Senior Editors made of renowned, experienced researchers, which are active in their fields. Its peer review process is innovative and aims to ensure clear assessment goals as well as constructive and consolidated comments made by Editor and reviewers. Read More →

The use of research metrics is diversified in the Leiden Manifesto

Research evaluation in recent decades has been increasingly conducted through metrics and indicators, which are gradually replacing the assessment by peers. Researchers gathered at the 19th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (STI 2014) held in September 2014 in Leiden, Netherlands, in order to advise on the use of metrics in research assessment drafted a set of rules – the Leiden Manifesto. Know its guidelines. Read More →

Peer-review as a research topic in its own right

Over the last decade, the topic of scholarly communication has attracted the interest of researchers in all fields of knowledge. One of the most studied topics is the assessment of peer review, including its qualitative and quantitative aspects, its ability to detect and curb unethical practices, the appreciation of its methods of assessment and how technology can facilitate and improve the process, while meeting the challenges brought about by the age of digital publishing. Read More →

Peer review: bad with it, worse without it

Peer review is seen as one of the pillars – if not the most important – of scientific communication. Despite the difficulties in going through the review process, the authors believe that the process improves the quality of the manuscript, and they want to be published on refereed journals that have a sound evaluation mechanism. Recent cases of attempted manipulation of the peer review process by fake reviews concern the international scientific community, however, it does not undermine its credibility and trust. The peer review crisis can be an opportunity to strengthen and improve the process. Read More →

Peer review modalities, pros and cons

The double-blind peer review system is chosen by most researchers as an effective and efficient mechanism by eliminating subjective judgment as well as authorship and affiliation biases, allowing to focus on the quality of the manuscript. Nature reports that authors can, from now on, choose this form of review for their manuscripts. Here are discussed the most common forms of peer review, its features, advantages and disadvantages, including those regarding SciELO Brazil journals. Read More →

Could grant proposal reviews be made available openly?

Researchers have been discussing what would be the impact of making the review process of grant proposals more open and transparent, in order to support the preparation of better proposals and acknowledge the work of the reviewers. A recently published paper in Nature examines the impact of two articles on the open availability of the review of research proposals and the possibility of changing the assessment after publication of the results. Read More →

Study analyzes the use of social networks in the assessment of scientific impact

The use of social networks in science communication has been increasing on a large scale, and specific platforms have been created for interaction and information sharing among researchers. A study by researchers at the University of St. Gallen, in Switzerland evaluated whether and how scientific impact can be measured by social media data analysis, and how this approach correlates to traditional metrics. Read More →

Gender inequality in science varies among disciplines

Certain disciplines have a lower percentage of women than others. A study published in Science puts forward the hypothesis that there are proportionately fewer women in fields where it is believed that brilliance and innate talent are required rather than hard work and dedication. The study, which looked at 1,820 researchers in institutions of higher education in the United States, showed an inverse relationship between the fields that value innate talent and the number of women represented in these fields. Read More →

Article analyses saturation of peer reviewers

Online publication caused a significant increase in the number of journals and articles worldwide, but the number of researchers has not increased proportionately. Thus, the peer review process, which ensures quality and credibility to scientific articles, is saturated and as a result the quality of reviews is decreasing. Two articles in Nature address this issue, the first one proposes a hybrid model to evaluate the articles and the second reports an online service for registration and publication of reviews, in order to grant credit and recognition to the reviewers. Read More →

Paper investigates: is your most cited work your best work?

A study reports research with the 400 most cited authors in biomedical sciences on their perception of their most cited articles published in 2005-2008. The authors were asked to score their ten most cited articles in six ways. The research aims to investigate whether the authors consider their most cited articles and answer questions such as: Science progresses mainly through evolution or revolution? The study has many interesting findings, however, instead of answering the questions, it brings even more interrogations. Read More →

Study proposes a taxonomy of motives to cite articles in scientific publications

Article examines the activity of citing publications during the process of writing a scientific paper. The suggested model consists of four main categories – Arguments, Social Alignment, Mercantile Alignment and Data – plus subcategories. The authors argue that the complexities of citation practice show how little can be assumed about the real reasons for citing an article by analyzing the final paper. The study has an impact mainly in attributing relevance to articles based solely on citations, and therefore, on journal and researcher assessment. Read More →