Impact factor statistics and publication practice: What can we learn?

Ethology

Volumn 113, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 1-8

  Taborsky, Michael ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PUBLISHING; STATISTICAL CONCEPT;

EID: 33846265863     PISSN: 01791613     EISSN: 14390310     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2007.01329.x     Document Type: Review

References (61)

1. Amin, M. & Mabe, M. A. 2003: Impact factors: use and abuse. Medicina-Buenos Aires. 63, 347-354.
2. Amo, L., Lopez, P. & Martin, J. 2006: Can wall lizards combine chemical and visual cues to discriminate predatory from non-predatory snakes inside refuges? Ethology. 112, 478-484.
3. Andersson, M. 2005: Evolution of classical polyandry: Three steps to female emancipation. Ethology. 111, 1-23.
4. Barros, D. M., Ramirez, M. R. & Izquierdo, I. 2005: Modulation of working, short- and long-term memory by nicotinic receptors in the basolateral amygdala in rats. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory. 83, 113-118.
5. Bellemain, E., Swenson, J. E. & Taberlet, P. 2006: Mating strategies in relation to sexually selected infanticide in a non-social carnivore: The brown bear. Ethology. 112, 238-246.
6. Berger, E. 2006: Peer review: A castle built on sand or the bedrock of scientific publishing? Annals of Emergency Medicine. 47, 157-159.
7. Black, N., van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Smith, R. & Evans, S. 1998: What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association. 280, 231-233.
8. Blackledge, T. A. & Zevenbergen, J. M. 2006: Mesh width influences prey retention in spider orb webs. Ethology. 112, 1194-1201.
9. Blank, R. M. 1991: The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: experimental evidence from the American Economic Review. American Economic Review. 81, 1041-1067.
10. Blumstein, D. T. 2006: The multipredator hypothesis and the evolutionary persistence of antipredator behavior. Ethology. 112, 209-217.
11. Canales, J. J. 2005: Stimulant-induced adaptations in neostriatal matrix and striosome systems: Transiting from instrumental responding to habitual behavior in drug addiction. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory. 83, 93-103.
12. Cho, M. K., Justice, A. C., Winker, M. A., Berlin, J. A., Waeckerle, J. F., Callaham, M. L. & Rennie, D. 1998: Masking author identity in peer review - What factors influence masking success? Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association. 280, 243-245.
13. Fabiato, A. 1994: Anonymity of reviewers. Cardiovascular Research. 28, 1134-1139.
14. Ferkau, C. & Fischer, K. 2006: Costs of reproduction in male Bicyclus anynana and Pieris napi butterflies: Effects of mating history and food limitation. Ethology. 112, 1117-1127.
15. Fisher, M., Friedman, S. B. & Strauss, B. 1994: The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer-review. Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association. 272, 143-146.
16. Friedl, T. W. P. 2006: Individual male calling pattern and male mating success in the European treefrog (Hyla arborea): Is there evidence for directional or stabilizing selection on male calling behaviour? Ethology. 112, 116-126.
17. Gherardi, F. & Atema, J. 2005: Memory of social partners in hermit crab dominance. Ethology. 111, 271-285.
18. Godlee, F., Gale, C. R. & Martyn, C. N. 1998: Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports - A randomized controlled trial. Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association. 280, 237-240.
19. Godlee, F. 2002: Making reviewers visible - Openness, accountability, and credit. Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association. 287, 2762-2765.
20. Hamilton, W. D. 1964: Genetical evolution of social behaviour I. Journal of Theoretical Biology. 7, 1.
21. Heinrich, B. & Bugnyar, T. 2005: Testing problem solving in ravens: String-pulling to reach food. Ethology. 111, 962-976.
22. Howard, L. & Wilkinson, G. 1998: Peer review and editorial decision-making. British Journal of Psychiatry. 173, 110-113.
23. Jefferson, T., Alderson, P., Wager, E. & Davidoff, F. 2002: Effects of editorial peer review - A systematic review. Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association. 287, 2784-2786.
24. Jefferson, T. O., Alderson, P., Davidoff, F. & Wager, E. 2003: Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical study (Cochrane Methodology Review). The Cochrane Library (Issue 1). Update Software, Oxford.
25. Jennings, D. J., Gammell, M. P., Payne, R. J. H. & Hayden, T. J. 2005: An investigation of assessment games during fallow deer fights. Ethology. 111, 511-525.
26. Johnson, J. C. 2005: The role of body size in mating interactions of the sexually cannibalistic fishing spider Dolomedes triton. Ethology. 111, 51-61.
27. Justice, A. C., Cho, M. K., Winker, M. A., Berlin, J. A. & Rennie, D. 1998: Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? - A randomized controlled trial. Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association. 280, 240-242.
28. Katz, D. S., Proto, A. V. & Olmsted, W. W. 2002: Incidence and nature of unblinding by authors: Our experience at two radiology journals with double-blinded peer review policies. American Journal of Roentgenology. 179, 1415-1417.
29. Kim, J. & Ragozzino, M. E. 2005: The involvement of the orbitofrontal cortex in learning under changing task contingencies. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory. 83, 125-133.
30. Kohler, M. & Wehner, R. 2005: Idiosyncratic route-based memories in desert ants, Melophorus bagoti: How do they interact with path-integration vectors? Neurobiology of Learning and Memory. 83, 1-12.
31. Kuhlmann, S., Kirschbaum, C. & Wolf, O. T. 2005: Effects of oral cortisol treatment in healthy young women on memory retrieval of negative and neutral words. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory. 83, 158-162.
32. Kutsukake, N. 2006: The context and quality of social relationships affect vigilance behaviour in wild chimpanzees. Ethology. 112, 581-591.
33. Lambert, T. J., Fernandez, S. M. & Frick, K. M. 2005: Different types of environmental enrichment have discrepant effects on spatial memory and synaptophysin levels in female mice. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory. 83, 206-216.
34. McNutt, R. A., Evans, A. T., Fletcher, R. H. & Fletcher, S. W. 1990: The effects of blinding on the quality of peer-review: a randomized trial. Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association. 263, 1371-1376.
35. Melero, R. & Lopez-Santovena, F. 2001: Referees' attitudes toward open peer review and electronic transmission of papers. Food Science and Technology International. 7, 521-527.
36. Monclus, R., Rodel, H. G. & von Holst, D. 2006: Fox odour increases vigilance in european rabbits: A study under semi-natural conditions. Ethology. 112, 1186-1193.
37. Morrison, J. 2006: The case for open peer review. Medical Education. 40, 830-831.
38. Nylenna, M., Riis, P. & Karlsson, Y. 1994: Multiple blinded reviews of the two manuscripts: Effects of referee characteristics and publication language. Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association. 272, 149-151.
39. Peters, M. I. & Despland, E. 2006: Plasticity in forest tent caterpillar collective foraging schedules. Ethology. 112, 521-528.
40. Poisbleau, M., Fritz, H., Guillemain, M. & Lacroix, A. 2005: Testosterone and linear social dominance status in captive male dabbling ducks in winter. Ethology. 111, 493-509.
41. Regehr, G. & Bordage, G. 2006: To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer. Medical Education. 40, 832-839.
42. Rennie, D. 1998: Freedom and responsibility in medical publication - Setting the balance right. Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association. 280, 300-302.
43. Rennie, D., Flanagin, A., Smith, R. & Smith, J. 2003: Fifth international congress on peer review and biomedical publication - Call for research. British Medical Journal. 326, 563-564.
44. Roper, A. & Zann, R. 2006: The onset of song learning and song tutor selection in fledgling zebra finches. Ethology. 112, 458-470.
45. Roy, R. & Ashburn, J. R. 2001: The perils of peer review. Nature. 414, 393-394.
46. Safi, K., Heinzle, J. & Reinhold, K. 2006: Species recognition influences female mate preferences in the common european grasshopper (Chorthippus biguttulus Linnaeus, 1758). Ethology. 112, 1225-1230.
47. Setchell, J. M. & Wickings, E. J. 2005: Dominance, status signals and coloration in male mandrills (Mandrillus sphinx). Ethology. 111, 25-50.
48. Smith, R. 1999: Opening up BMJ peer review - A beginning that should lead to complete transparency. British Medical Journal. 318, 4-5.
49. Smith, R. 2006: (a) Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 99, 178-182.
50. Smith, R. 2006: (b) The highly profitable but unethical business of publishing medical research. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 99, 452-456.
51. Snodgrass, R. 2006: Single- versus double-blind reviewing: An analysis of the literature. Sigmod Record. 35, 8-21.
52. Taborsky, M. 2006: Ethology into a new era. Ethology. 112, 1-6.
53. Tan, E. J. & Tang, B. L. 2006: Looking for food: Molecular neuroethology of invertebrate feeding behavior. Ethology. 112, 826-832.
54. van Rooyen, S. 1998: A critical examination of the peer review process. Learned Publishing. 11, 185-191.
55. van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S., Smith, R. & Black, N. 1998: Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review - A randomized trial. Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association. 280, 234-237.
56. van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S., Black, N. & Smith, R. 1999: Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial. British Medical Journal. 318, 23-27.
57. Wager, E. & Jefferson, T. 2001: Shortcomings of peer review in biomedical journals. Learned Publishing. 14, 257-263.
58. Wager, E., Parkin, E. C. & Tamber, P. S. 2006: Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study. BMC Medicine. 4, 1-5.
59. Walsh, E., Rooney, M., Appleby, L. & Wilkinson, G. 2000: Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Psychiatry. 176, 47-51.
60. Wessely, S., Brugha, T., Cowen, P., Smith, L. & Paykel, S. 1996: Do authors know who refereed their paper? A questionnaire survey. British Medical Journal. 313, 1185.
61. Young, S. N. 2003: Peer review of manuscripts: theory and practice. Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience. 28, 327-330.