Methods Open – A New Journal Track Starting in 2017

2016 ◽  
Vol 55 (06) ◽  
pp. 478-480 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reinhold Haux ◽  
Olaf Gefeller ◽  
Indra N. Sarkar ◽  
Dieter Bergemann ◽  
Sabine Koch
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Scientific Progress ◽  
Research Results ◽  
New Methods ◽  
Double Blinded ◽  
Gold Open Access

SummaryFrom 2017 (volume 56) onwards the journal Methods of Information in Medicine will consist of two tracks. Authors can decide to submit their manuscript to either the subscription track that continues to publish its six print and electronic (non-open access) issues for journal subscribers, or the new Methods Open track that will consist of digitally published manuscripts (as gold open access). These two tracks will constitute from 2017 on the journal’s Tandem Model. Simultaneously, Methods will introduce a double-blinded review process and reviewer assessment by the submitting authors. Implications of these changes for both authors and reviewers are discussed. With these steps, Methods aims to improve the visibility of the journal and contribute to sharing research results as timely and as widely as possible and thereby to promote scientific progress.

scholarly journals Launching eLife, Part 1

eLife ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Randy Schekman ◽  
Mark Patterson ◽  
Fiona Watt ◽  
Detlef Weigel
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Open Access Journal ◽  
Pubmed Central ◽  
Research Results ◽  
New Research

The new open-access journal eLife has launched, making its first content available in PubMed Central. In addition to publishing science of the highest quality, the journal aims to improve both the peer-review process and the presentation of new research results.

Machine learning for rediscovering revolutionary ideas of the past

2021 ◽  
pp. 105971232098304
Author(s):  
R Alexander Bentley ◽  
Joshua Borycz ◽  
Simon Carrignon ◽  
Damian J Ruck ◽  
Michael J O’Brien
Keyword(s):  
Language Processing ◽  
Scientific Progress ◽  
Phylogenetic Inference ◽  
The Past ◽  
New Methods ◽  
Inherent Nature ◽  
Social Learning Processes ◽  
High Level ◽  
Scientific Ideas ◽  
Revolutionary Science

The explosion of online knowledge has made knowledge, paradoxically, difficult to find. A web or journal search might retrieve thousands of articles, ranked in a manner that is biased by, for example, popularity or eigenvalue centrality rather than by informed relevance to the complex query. With hundreds of thousands of articles published each year, the dense, tangled thicket of knowledge grows even more entwined. Although natural language processing and new methods of generating knowledge graphs can extract increasingly high-level interpretations from research articles, the results are inevitably biased toward recent, popular, and/or prestigious sources. This is a result of the inherent nature of human social-learning processes. To preserve and even rediscover lost scientific ideas, we employ the theory that scientific progress is punctuated by means of inspired, revolutionary ideas at the origin of new paradigms. Using a brief case example, we suggest how phylogenetic inference might be used to rediscover potentially useful lost discoveries, as a way in which machines could help drive revolutionary science.

scholarly journals When Does HARKing Hurt? Identifying When Different Types of Undisclosed Post Hoc Hypothesizing Harm Scientific Progress

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 308-320 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Rubin
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Scientific Progress ◽  
Research Report ◽  
Research Results ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Replication Crisis ◽  
Post Hoc

Hypothesizing after the results are known, or HARKing, occurs when researchers check their research results and then add or remove hypotheses on the basis of those results without acknowledging this process in their research report ( Kerr, 1998 ). In the present article, I discuss 3 forms of HARKing: (a) using current results to construct post hoc hypotheses that are then reported as if they were a priori hypotheses; (b) retrieving hypotheses from a post hoc literature search and reporting them as a priori hypotheses; and (c) failing to report a priori hypotheses that are unsupported by the current results. These 3 types of HARKing are often characterized as being bad for science and a potential cause of the current replication crisis. In the present article, I use insights from the philosophy of science to present a more nuanced view. Specifically, I identify the conditions under which each of these 3 types of HARKing is most and least likely to be bad for science. I conclude with a brief discussion about the ethics of each type of HARKing.

scholarly journals How to write an article: Preparing a publishable manuscript!

CytoJournal ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vinod B. Shidham ◽  
Martha B. Pitman ◽  
Richard M. DeMay
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Scientific Progress ◽  
Scientific Work ◽  
International Committee ◽  
Open Platform ◽  
Track Record ◽  
Do It Yourself ◽  
Personal Success ◽  
Modern Era ◽  
Open Access Article

Most of the scientific work presented as abstracts (platforms and posters) at various conferences have the potential to be published as articles in peer-reviewed journals. This DIY (Do It Yourself) article on how to achieve that goal is an extension of the symposium presented at the 36th European Congress of Cytology, Istanbul, Turkey (presentation available on net at http://alturl.com/q6bfp). The criteria for manuscript authorship should be based on the ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts. The next step is to choose the appropriate journal to submit the manuscript and review the ‘Instructions to the authors’ for that journal. Although initially it may appear to be an insurmountable task, diligent organizational discipline with a little patience and perseverance with input from mentors should lead to the preparation of a nearly perfect publishable manuscript even by a novice. Ultimately, the published article is an excellent track record of academic productivity with contribution to the general public good by encouraging the exchange of experience and innovation. It is a highly rewarding conduit to the personal success and growth leading to the collective achievement of continued scientific progress. Recent emergences of journals and publishers offering the platform and opportunity to publish under an open access charter provides the opportunity for authors to protect their copyright from being lost to conventional publishers. Publishing your work on this open platform is the most rewarding mission and is the recommended option in the current modern era. [This open access article can be linked (copy-paste link from HTML version of this article) or reproduced FREELY if original reference details are prominently identifiable].

scholarly journals Reforming Science Publishing

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Khaled Moustafa
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Publishing Industry ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Open Access Journal ◽  
The Past ◽  
Open Access Journals

Over the past few years, different changes have been introduced into the science publishing industry. However, important reforms are still required at both the content and form levels. First, the peer review process needs to be open, fair and transparent. Second, author-paid fees in open access journals need to either be removed or reconsidered toward more affordability. Third, the categorization of papers should include all types of scientific contributions that can be of higher interest to the scientific community than many mere quantitative and observable measures, or simply removed from publications. Forth, word counts and reference numbers in online open access journal should be nuanced or replaced by recommended ranges rather than to be a proxy of acceptance or rejection. Finally, all the coauthors of a manuscript should be considered corresponding authors and responsible for their mutual manuscript rather than only one or two.

An Analysis of a Decade of Research Published in the "Journal of Computer Mediated Communication"

2011 ◽  
pp. 541-550
Author(s):  
Jamie Switzer
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Research Methods ◽  
Empirical Research ◽  
Computer Mediated Communication ◽  
Electronic Journal ◽  
Mediated Communication ◽  
Research Results ◽  
Computer Mediated

This chapter explores how, in a single decade (1995-2005), research into computer-mediated communication (CMC) has evolved by examining the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (JCMC). JCMC is a peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, open-access electronic journal that publishes primarily empirical research and presents a significant body of work falling under the rubric of CMC. JCMC has published diverse scholarly articles that further researchers’ and practitioners’ knowledge and understanding of CMC. This chapter synthesizes the research results presented in JCMC during its first 10 years of publication, examining the topics, methodologies, and populations utilized in those articles as well as an interpretation of the trends present in the research. Within the 279 articles analyzed, nine major categories of sample populations and eight different broad research methods were determined, and eleven broad categories of inquiry and scholarship were identified. There was no indication of any clear trends in CMC research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document