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?
We have a serious problem with errors and irredeemably flawed studies: there’s a lot of them, and they keep leading people astray. Few errors get corrected. And it’s very rare for a paper to
Over 500 science journal editors, publishers, and meta-researchers are gathered in Chicago for the 8th Peer Review Congress (#PRC8), a once-every-4-years researchfest about “enhancing the quality and credibility of science”. I’m live-blogging – you can catch up
An editorial expression of concern is a way to alert readers to behind-the-scenes worries about the integrity of a publication. It emerged in 1997, from the influential International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, but was hardly
It was easy to work out where I stood in a fairly recent outburst of name-calling from one of the pillars of science. I’m totally a data/research parasite! It wasn’t quite so easy to work out
The academic clinician in this cartoon needs 15 slides to list all the drug and device manufacturers he’s received money from recently. By the time he gets to the end of all that, will you
“Women scientists seem to be underrepresented in science activities that make their reflections public.” I wrote that glum-making sentence. It was in an editorial for PLOS Medicine about post-publication culture. The studies that led me to this
London, 1835 – 1854. Sometimes they just played cards. But mostly, they would gather in a small room over a baker’s shop and read journals. The doctors had formed “a kind of club” because the
A closed beta pilot commenting system for PubMed rumbled into life in Bethesda, USA on Tuesday morning (22 Oct 2013). Here’s a personal (very biased) selection from the stream of blogging and more than 1,500 tweets in the first few days.