When it comes to self-archiving final manuscripts, NIH-funded authors either do not understand–or blatantly disregard–government and publisher policy. What can be done?
Two funny videos of processes in scientific life which many of us can use a good laugh about. Warning — Hitler, unsurprisingly, swears like a sailor when he’s frustrated. The peer review send-up: And, if you want more, there’s the […]
Registering clinical trials after enrollment has commenced may lead to the perception that medical researchers are peeking.
A new book on the economics shaping science is a treasure trove of facts arranged sensibly and put wonderfully into context. In addition, it’s an example of how to design a print book.
A surprising new coalition of Tea Party and US-first activists begin an effort to limit US taxpayer-funded research to US taxpayers. Will it succeed?
A new report for the Center of Economic Development suffers from a strong bias in its authorship. But beyond that, its implicit complaints, if addressed completely, would lead to a trainwreck in the world of scholarly communication. Is nobody thinking these things through?
While publishers are the targets of complaints about keeping taxpayer-funded research from reaching the public, where is the outcry when studies show less than 1/4 mandatory reporting requirements are fulfilled by researchers?
Fewer than half of NIH sponsored clinical trials are published within 30 months, and 4 out of 5 FDA trials fail to publicly register results (as mandated by law), studies published in the BMJ report. Authors and sponsors may be the strongest source of reporting bias.
The two Requests for Information recently put forth by the federal government require a realistic set of responses, and hint at some changes in attitudes and approaches.
Taxpayer access to US federally funded research results need not involve publishers giving away their product. An alternative mechanism is available, one that is already partially implemented. It is called the research report. Demands for free access to taxpayer funded […]
NIH-funded researchers append name to ghost-written textbook. Is it time for physicians to heal themselves?
If consumer web sites remain the source of most health information, there is little that FRPAA will do to improve the transmission of research to the public.
The overtly religious views of Francis Collins, nominated to run the NIH, is creating a controversy deserving of careful attention.
The NIH Public Access Policy debate can be better understood through the lenses of competing Intellectual Property theories.
The American Psychological Association has abruptly halted a policy that would charge $2,500 for archiving in PubMed Central