The challenges for scientific publishing, 60 years on

Journal of Neurochemistry

Volumn 139, Issue , 2016, Pages 280-287

  Hausmann, Laura ^a   Murphy, Sean P ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL RWTH AACHEN   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; ETHICS; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMATION STORAGE; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH; REVIEW; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; METHODOLOGY; PUBLICATION; STANDARDS; TRENDS; WRITING;

AUTHORSHIP; HUMANS; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PLAGIARISM; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH DESIGN; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT;

EID: 84993925011     PISSN: 00223042     EISSN: 14714159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/jnc.13550     Document Type: Review

References (16)

1. Editorial. (2015) Lancet 385(9976): 1365. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60700-0
2. Aboukhalil R. (2014) The rising trend in authorship. Winnower 2, 26907.
3. Bachelard H. S. (1988) A brief history of neurochemistry in Britain, and of the neurochemical group of the British Biochemical Society. J. Neurochem. 50, 992–995.
4. Bachelard H. S. (1993) 25 Years of the International Society for Neurochemistry. J. Neurochem. 61(Suppl 1), 287–307.
5. Clayton J. A. and Collins F. S. (2014) Policy: NIH to balance sex in cell and animal studies. Nature 509, 282–283.
6. Ferguson C., Marcus A. and Oransky I. (2014) Publishing: the peer-review scam. Nature 515, 480–482.
7. Heleno R. H. (2014) Meta-analyses and the “editorial love of controversy”. Web Ecol. 14, 23–25.
8. Hvistendahl M. (2013) China's Publication Bazaar. Science 342, 1035–1039.
9. Lang T. A. and Altman D. G. (2013) Basic Statistical Reporting for Articles Published in Biomedical Journals: The “Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature“ or The SAMPL Guidelines”. www.equator-network.org.
10. Murphy S. P., Bulman C. et al. (2014) Submitting a manuscript for peer review–integrity, integrity, integrity. J. Neurochem. 128, 341–343.
11. Resch K. I., Ernst E. and Garrow J. (2000) A randomized controlled study of reviewer bias against an unconventional therapy. J. R. Soc. Med. 93, 164–167.
12. Rossner M. (2006) How to guard against image fraud. Scientist 20, 24–26.
13. Sarter M. and Fritschy J.-M. (2008) Editorial: Reporting statistical methods and statistical results in EJN. Europ J Neurosci 28, 2362–2364.
14. Siler K., Lee K. et al. (2015) Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 360–365.
15. Steen R. G., Casadevall A. and Fang F. C. (2013) Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? PLoS One 8(7), e68397.
16. Tian X. and Song G. M. (2015) China's medical research integrity. Lancet 386(10002), e17. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00410-9