This is the sixth year I’ve rounded up the year in open access – and it was the most remarkable. When the year began, the world’s largest academic publisher, Elsevier, had increased their
I don’t recall hearing it before. But I’ve heard the slogan “high value, low wastage research” a lot the last few days. And I think this one is more than just a catchphrase.
I think the main thing I learned – very painfully – in 20 years as a health consumer advocate, is that zealots always, always end up hurting patients. Because whatever it is that
Boilover: The Cochrane HPV Vaccine Fire Isn’t Really About the Evidence – but it’s Critical to Science
It was always a volatile situation. If it blew, it was going to be even harder to keep perspective through all the fire, noise, and smoke. And it just did boil over – very,
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
What should scientific editors be able to do well? We would all be able to agree easily on some basics. Last year, a group led by David Moher and colleagues came to a
There’s a sort of Godwin’s Law for discussions on open peer review. Sooner or later, someone’s going to say, “We can’t expect early career researchers to sign peer reviews, because of fear of retaliation”. And that’s
It was a turning point. The previous year, the US Civil Rights Act had passed. On 26 January 1969 in New Orleans, 17 African-American mathematicians gathered at the annual national mathematical meeting. They
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