The emerging landscape of scientific publishing

Clinical Biochemistry

Volumn 50, Issue 12, 2017, Pages 651-655

  Fiala, Clare ^a   Diamandis, Eleftherios P ^a,b,c  

^a MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY HEALTH NETWORK   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; REVIEW; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; BIBLIOMETRICS; ECONOMICS; ETHICS; HUMAN; OPEN ACCESS PUBLISHING; TRENDS;

BIBLIOMETRICS; HUMANS; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; OPEN ACCESS PUBLISHING; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH;

EID: 85018678035     PISSN: 00099120     EISSN: 18732933     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2017.04.009     Document Type: Review

References (31)

1. Garfield, E., The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA 295 (2006), 90–93.
2. Diamandis, E.P., The journal impact factor is under attack—use the CAPCI factor instead. BMC Med., 15, 2017, 9.
3. Diamandis, E.P., Journal impact factor: it will go away soon. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 47 (2009), 1317–1318.
4. Diamandis, E.P., More discussion on journal impact factor. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med., 51, 2013, 2271.
5. Callaway, E., Beat it, impact factor! Publishing elite turns against controversial metric. Nature 535 (2016), 210–211.
6. Seglen, P.O., Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 314 (1997), 498–502.
7. Favaloro, E.J., Still more discussion on the journal impact factor. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 51 (2013), e283–e284.
8. Kurmis, A.P., Understanding the limitations of the journal impact factor. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 85 (2003), 2449–2454.
9. Larivier, V., Kiermer, V., CJ, MacCallum, McNutt, M., Patterson, M., Pulverer, B., Swaminathan, S., Taylor, S., Curry, S., A simple proposal for the publication of journal citation distributions. BioRxiv Beta, 2016 http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/09/11/062109.
10. Rochmyaningsih, D., The developing world needs more than numbers. Nature, 542, 2017, 7.
11. Oosthuizen, J.C., Fenton, J.E., Alternatives to the impact factor. Surgeon 12 (2014), 239–243.
12. Tracz, V., The Five Deadly Sins of Science Publishing. 4, 2015, F1000 Research, 112.
13. Van Noorden, R., Controversial impact factor gets a heavyweight rival. Nature 540 (2016), 325–326.
14. Diamandis, E.P., The current peer review system is unsustainable—awaken the paid reviewer force!. Clin. Biochem., 2017 (Ahead of print).
15. Powell, K., Does it take too long to publish research?. Nature 530 (2016), 148–151.
16. Smith, R., Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J. R. Soc. Med. 99 (2006), 178–182.
17. Tandon, R., How to review a scientific paper. Asian J. Psychiatr. 11 (2014), 124–127.
18. Anonymous, Support for peer review. Nat. Immunol., 11, 2010, 1063.
19. Khan, K., Is open peer review the fairest system? No. BMJ, 341, 2010, c6425.
20. Groves, T., Is open peer review the fairest system? Yes. BMJ, 341, 2010, c6424.
21. Kachewar, S.G., Sankaye, S., Reviewer index: a new proposal of rewarding the reviewer. Mens Sana Monogr. 11 (2013), 274–284.
22. Eaton, L., Norwegian researcher admits that his data were faked. BMJ, 332, 2006, 193.
23. Annesley, T., Scott, M., Bastian, H., Fonseca, V., Ioannidis, J.P., Keller, M.A., Polka, J., Biomedical journals and preprint services: friends or foes?. Clin. Chem. 63 (2017), 453–458.
24. Jefferson, T., Alderson, P., Wager, E., Davidoff, F., Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA 287 (2002), 2784–2786.
25. Lariviere, V., Sugimoto, C.R., Macaluso, B., Milojevic, S., Cronin, B., Thelwall, M., arXiv E-prints and the Journal of Record: An Analysis of Roles and Relationships. https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.3261.
26. Callaway, E., Heavyweight funders back central site for life-sciences preprints. Nature 542 (2017), 283–284.
27. Beall, J., Predatory journals: ban predators from the scientific record. Nature, 534, 2016, 326.
28. Bohannon, J., Who's afraid of peer review?. Science 342 (2013), 60–65.
29. Butler, D., Investigating journals: the dark side of publishing. Nature 495 (2013), 433–435.
30. Chua, S.K., Qureshi, A.M., Krishnan, V., Pai, D.R., Kamal, L.B., Gunasegaran, S., Afzal, M.Z., Ambawatta, L., Gan, J.Y., Kew, P.Y., Winn, T., The Impact Factor of an Open Access Journal Does Not Contribute to an Article's Citations F1000 Research. https://f1000research.com/articles/6-208/v1, 2017.
31. Van Noorden, R., Science journals permit open-access publishing for Gates Foundation Scholars. Nature, 2017 http://kipcurriercopyright.blogspot.ca/2017/02/science-journals-permit-open-access.html.