publications
Send us a link
The rhetoric of “excellence” is pervasive across the academy. It is used to refer to research outputs as well as researchers, theory and education, individuals and organisations, from art history to zoology. But what does “excellence” mean? Does it in fact mean anything at all? And is the pervasive narrative of excellence and competition a good thing?
A researcher collaborating with many groups will normally have more papers (and thus higher citations and h-index) than a researcher spending all his/her time working alone or in a small group. While analyzing an author’s research merit, it is therefore not enough to consider only the collective impact of the published papers, it is also necessary to quantify his/her share in the impact. For this quantification, here I propose the I-index which is defined as an author’s percentage share in the total citations that his/her papers have attracted.
The language and conceptual framework of “research reproducibility” are nonstandard and unsettled across the sciences. In this Perspective, we review an array of explicit and implicit definitions of reproducibility and related terminology, and discuss how to avoid potential misunderstandings when these terms are used as a surrogate for “truth.”
The persistence of poor methods results partly from incentives that favor them, leading to the natural selection of bad science. This dynamic requires no conscious strategizing - no deliberate cheating nor loafing - by scientists, only that publication is a principle factor for career advancement.
Altmetrics have gained momentum and are meant to overcome the shortcomings of citation-based metrics. In this regard some light is shed on the dangers associated with the new “all-in-one” indicator altmetric score.
Using the “#arseniclife” controversy as a case study, we examine the roles of blogs and Twitter in post-publication review.
Editorials are generally about what we did right in our journal and we do not often publish about our failures. Yet, in this Editorial we feel we have to convey the full story of how we went entirely off track with the publication of a paper.
Observational study from 1994 to 2014
Evidence from UMETRICS Data Linked to the 2010 Census
Reputational assessments of scientists were based more on how they pursue knowledge and respond to replication evidence, not whether the initial results were true.
A comparison of the methodological quality and the quality of reporting of primary epidemiological studies and systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in OA and non-OA journals.
A look at novel methods to improve measurement of innovation and growth in the modern economy.
How can interdisciplinary research proposals be more effectively assessed through peer review?
Complex, diverse rationales require nuanced policies: evidence suggests a need for increased attention to career planning among students, their mentors, graduate schools, and funders
An analysis reveals that the text contents of the scientific papers generally change very little from their pre-print to final published versions.
A narrative review of empirical evidence
A discussion of the common underpinning problems with the scientific and data analytic practices and point to tools and behaviors that can be implemented to reduce the problems with published scientific results.
A 40-year longitudinal cross-validation of citations, downloads, and peer review in astrophysics
This study attempted to determine the percentage of published papers containing inappropriate image duplication, a specific type of inaccurate data.
Characteristics of images and perceptions of professionalism and attractiveness on academic social networking sites
Biases in grant proposal success rates, funding rates and award sizes affect the geographical distribution of funding for biomedical research
Towards a collaborative open database of all available information on all clinical trials
Do people think that scientists are bad people? Although surveys find that science is a highly respected profession, a growing discourse has emerged regarding how science is often judged negatively.
