Many studies are so thin on details, they’re unverifiable, unusable, or both. Many are too small, badly designed, or otherwise unreliable – and then the results are misinterpreted, the validity exaggerated. Many aren’t
All those “Reviewer 2″s – can’t live with ’em, can’t live without ’em! So how can we improve both the quality of “the scientific literature” and the role of peer review in it?
It’s not enough to mean well, is it? Principles matter, but so do the effects of acting on our strongly held beliefs. We need to keep re-visiting our values in considering the impact of
This was the fifth year I tracked events in open access. Sifting through the mass of developments I collected along the way, a couple stood out. The first is the showdown going on
My last post on the use of open science badges for articles set off a flurry of debate. There were some issues that I had touched on, but clearly could use more discussion –
I like badges – I have a lot of them! I’m also an open science advocate. So when a group of advocates declared their badges for authors were dramatically increasing open practice, I could
The case of the missing neurological drug trials remains shrouded in mystery. Nearly 48,000 people took part in these trials for new drugs for multiple sclerosis, stroke, Alzheimer disease, migraine, epilepsy, insomnia, and Parkinson disease.
There’s a new kid on the publication access block at PubMed. It’s a little one, so you might not notice it for a while amongst the giants: a new high-profile spot for icon’s links to free
A few years ago, I wrote that open access (OA) publications were gaining momentum. Based on a study of 2006 to 2010 in the biomedical literature database, PubMed, our access to publications was apparently growing
Many of them were watching the evening TV news on the BBC, with no idea of the blow that was about to hit. They were cancer patients at a center in Bristol, and