FUTURE OF MEDICAL PUBLISHING
- What would you change about medical publishing? Scholarly Kitchen offers some interesting perspectives. Share yours via Comments below.
If you could change one thing about scholarly publishing, what would that be? (Scholarly Kitchen blog)
- Editor receives offer of cash for publishing manuscripts
Pay to play? Three new ways companies are subverting academic publishing (Retraction Watch blog)
- Editors step down after their citation cartel was discovered (European Geophysical Union)
http://retractionwatch.com/2017/03/03/citation-boosting-episode-leads-editor (Retraction Watch blog)
- Commentaries on new developments with informed consent: e-consent and internet-based clinical trials, changes in perceptions of risk, new types of risk
Informed Consent (NEJM [free])
- Should scientists attempt to replicate their own studies? They have an inherent desire (or conflict of interest) to see consistent results
Why Scientists Shouldn’t Replicate Their Own Work (Discover Magazine)
Do predatory journals fill a niche?
Predatory Publishing as a Rational Response to Poorly Governed Academic Incentives (Scholarly Kitchen blog)
- A neuroscientist posts his peer reviews online, emails the authors, and tweets a link to his review (but only if the manuscript is available as a preprint)
The Rogue Neuroscientist on a Mission to Hack Peer Review (Wired Magazine)
Newsletter #3. Originally circulated March 7, 2017. Sources include Retraction Watch and Scholarly Kitchen. Providing the links and information does not imply WAME’s endorsement.