PubMed and F1000 Research — Unclear Standards Applied Unevenly
F1000 Research has confusing review and publication practices, and doesn’t call itself a journal, yet is now going to be indexed by PubMed — further eroding the PubMed brand.
F1000 Research has confusing review and publication practices, and doesn’t call itself a journal, yet is now going to be indexed by PubMed — further eroding the PubMed brand.
I forget exactly when I first came across the idea that environmental lead, leftover from decades of leaded gasoline, was a factor in mental acuity, violent tendencies, and potentially crime. It must have been at least 20-25 years ago. Since […]
In a follow-up to the six mistakes sales reps make, here’s a list of six mistakes library staff can make. It’s a sobering comparison.
Can you pay attention? Or will your attention deficits make you pay? This pickpocket knows the answer, and he’s helping people understand why their attention wanders, falters, or . . . squirrel!
Recent research into the risks of connected computing raise serious concerns — about personal safety, privacy, cyberwar, and cyberterror. We are at the early days of the Internet as part of the human condition.
The shootings in Connecticut last year can be, to some extent, blamed on research funding cuts and political intrusions into public health research.
In a year of mistakes, some corrections stand head and shoulders above others. Let us celebrate the honest and witty souls behind them.
Enjoy a laugh and lots of important lessons about how to decrease moronic mortality rates.
While some may be blinded to the clear implications of the Mayan calendar, these intrepid Canadian researchers find shocking and significant results to survival studies.
A new paper demonstrates how easy it is to game Google Scholar citations, and how the system resists correction.
Funders and governments are exerting their influence in scientific publishing through monetary and financial threats, and are willing to slow science in order to accomplish OA goals.
In a story of the modern age of fraud, spoofers find their way into peer-review rosters, reviewing their own papers or those of their friends/competitors.
Creating a centralized database for disclosing conflicts of interest (COI) is an easy sell. Deciding who is responsible and accountable for its funding and support is a much harder problem.
Funders — corporate, governmental, and philanthropic — have different priorities, yet they are now reaching into scientific publishing, wearing OA as a glove that fits. This post explores the problems this is creating and might create if allowed to perpetuate.
In this first part of a three-part series, the intrusion of governments into scientific publishing is contemplated — its causes, current state, and possible effects.