Blog
About

  • Record: found
  • Abstract: found
  • Article: found
Is Open Access

The urge to publish more and its consequences

Read this article at

Bookmark
      There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

      Related collections

      Most cited references 9

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Predatory publishers are corrupting open access.

        Bookmark
        • Record: found
        • Abstract: found
        • Article: not found

        Diversity, value and limitations of the journal impact factor and alternative metrics.

        The highly popular journal impact factor (JIF) is an average measure of citations within 1 year after the publication of a journal as a whole within the two preceding years. It is widely used as a proxy of a journal's quality and scientific prestige. This article discusses misuses of JIF to assess impact of separate journal articles and the effect of several manuscript versions on JIF. It also presents some newer alternative journal metrics such as SCImago Journal Rank and the h-index and analyses examples of their application in several subject categories.
          Bookmark
          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Conflicts of interest in biomedical publications: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors

          This article overviews evidence on common instances of conflict of interest (COI) in research publications from general and specialized fields of biomedicine. Financial COIs are viewed as the most powerful source of bias, which may even distort citation outcomes of sponsored publications. The urge to boost journal citation indicators by stakeholders of science communication is viewed as a new secondary interest, which may compromize the interaction between authors, peer reviewers, and editors. Comprehensive policies on disclosure of financial and non-financial COIs in scholarly journals are presented as proxies of their indexing in evidence-based databases, and examples of successful medical journals are discussed in detail. Reports on clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and clinical practice guidelines may be unduly influenced by author-pharmaceutical industry relations, but these publications do not always contain explicit disclosures to allow the readers to judge the reliability of the published conclusions and practice-changing recommendations. The article emphasizes the importance of adhering to the guidance on COI from learned associations such as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). It also considers joint efforts of authors, peer reviewers, and editors as a foundation for appropriately defining and disclosing potential COIs.
            Bookmark

            Author and article information

            Affiliations
            [1 ]Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran 1417614411, Iran
            [2 ]Council Member of the European Association of Science Editors, London, UK
            [3 ]Departments of Rheumatology and Research & Development, Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust, Teaching Trust of University of Birmingham, UK, Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley, West Midlands DY1 2HQ, United Kingdom
            [4 ]Medicinal Plants Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran 1417614411, Iran
            Contributors
            Journal
            Daru
            Daru
            DARU Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences
            BioMed Central
            1560-8115
            2008-2231
            2014
            30 June 2014
            : 22
            : 1
            : 53
            24980396
            4080727
            2008-2231-22-53
            10.1186/2008-2231-22-53
            Copyright © 2014 Abdollahi et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

            This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

            Categories
            Editorial

            Pharmacology & Pharmaceutical medicine

            Comments

            Rather than maintaining a pre-digital age concept of peer-review via a few reviewers and journal editor only: Wouldn't a transparent and open publishing system be more useful for a better quality assessment? All issues which were raised in the article could be considered more efficiently and transparently if the scholarly community will have access not only to the publication but also to the identity of reviewers and their comments. And all researchers which feel qualified to evaluate a new publication in their field of expertise should be enable to do so, not only a few, often randomly selected.

            2015-04-30 23:36 UTC
            +1
            Rather than maintaining a pre-digital age concept of peer-review via a few reviewers and journal editor only: Wouldn't a transparent and open publishing system be more useful for a better quality assessment? All issues which were raised in the article could be considered more efficiently and transparently if the scholarly community will have access not only to the publication but also to the identity of reviewers and their comments. And all researchers which feel qualified to evaluate a new publication in their field of expertise should be enable to do so, not only a few, often randomly selected.
            2014-08-16 09:40 UTC
            +1

            Comment on this article