Journal publishing: The changing landscape

Indian Journal of Medical Research

Volumn 138, Issue JUL 2013, 2013, Pages 4-7

  Satyanarayana, K ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EDITORIAL; HUMAN; PEER REVIEW; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; SCIENTIST;

INTERNET; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PUBLISHING;

EID: 84881073028     PISSN: 09715916     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Editorial

References (20)

1. Van Noorden R. The true cost of science publishing. Nature 2013; 495: 426-9.
2. Peer to peer. Economist June 8, 2013. Available from: http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21578987, portale-reviews-look-set-speed-up-publication-papers peer to peer.
3. Aarssen LW, Lortie CJ. Science Open Reviewed: an online community connecting authors with reviewers for journals. Ideas Ecol Evol 2012; 5: 78-83.
4. Satyanarayana K. JAMA, NEJM and beyond-Journal editing in the new millennium. Curr Sci 2000; 78: 1-3.
5. Priem J. Beyond the paper. Nature 2013; 495: 437-40.
6. Desjardins-Proulx P, White EP, Adamson JJ, Ram K, Poisot T, Gravel D. The case for open preprints in biology. PLoS Biol 2013; 11: e1001563.
7. Satyanarayana K. Dual-use research of concern: Publish and perish? Indian J Med Res 2011; 133: 1-4.
8. Reducing our irreproducibility. Nature 2013; 496: 398.
9. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA 1996; 276: 637-9, doi:10.1001/jama.276.8.637.
10. Equator Network publications. Available from: http://www.equator-network.org/about-equator/equator-publications0/equator-network-publications-2010/, accessed on June 13, 2013.
11. O'Leary JD, Crawford MW. Reporting Guidelines in the biomedical literature. Can J Anesth 2013; 60: 813-21.
12. Steen RG. Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing? J Med Ethics 2011; 37: 249-53.
13. Steen RG. Misinformation in the medical literature: what role do error and fraud play? J Med Ethics 2011; 37: 498-503.
14. Wager E, Williams P. Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988-2008. J Med Ethics 2011; 37: 567-50.
15. Fang FC, Casadevall A. Retracted science and the retraction index. Infect Immun 2011; 79: 3855-9.
16. Beall J. Predatory publishing. Scientist. August 1, 2012. Available from: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/32426/title/Predatory-Publishing/, accessed on June 13, 2013.
17. Butler D. Sham journals and scam authors. Nature 2013; 495: 421-2.
18. Butler D. Investigating journals: the dark side of publishing. Nature 2013; 495: 433-5.
19. Medawar PB. Is the scientific paper a fraud? Listener September 12, 1963. p. 377-8.
20. National Institutes of Health. Overall impact versus significance. Available from: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/guidelines_general/impact_significance.pdf., accessed on June 14, 2013.