-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Archives
- October 2023
- November 2021
- March 2015
- November 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
Categories
Meta
Category Archives: Science Publishing
Psychology Journal Bans Almost All of Statistics
Amongst the big news last week (besides the octopus-squid battle, a dress, and a singer falling over whilst – presumably – sober) was the release of an editorial from the journal “Basic and Applied Social Psychology” (BASP) which announced that … Continue reading
Posted in Science Publishing, Statistics
9 Comments
Ghost un-authorships
I’m currently reading Ben Goldacre’s Bad Pharma, in which he documents all the naughty things done by the Pharma industry. One of the many infelicities he mentions is their habit of ghostwriting academic papers, and then asking an academic to … Continue reading
Posted in Friday Fun, Science Publishing
2 Comments
Research with impact
After Stephen’s posts about impact factors and the like, I have a couple of serious posts brewing. But for now (and because it’s Friday), I want to admit to my reaction today to an advert I got about a journal, … Continue reading
Posted in Science Publishing, Silliness
9 Comments
Why does PLoS hate openness?
My frustrations for the day – I’m co-author on a manuscript submitted to PLoS. We’re now trying to upload the final version but we’re hitting silly problems that are caused by PLoS seemingly being beholden to Microsoft.
Posted in Aaaaaagh, Science Publishing
18 Comments
Good News for Open Access, Bad News for PLoS?
Well, actually this is old news, which I only noticed because of a link from the Improbable Research blog. The shorter version is that the success of PLoS could mean PLoS’s demise, because the need to adapt massively to benefit … Continue reading
Posted in Science Publishing, The Society of Science
10 Comments
Synthese Editors in Chief diss their own journal
And now for something completely different. Philosophers scoring an own goal. John Wilkins give the full story, but here’s a summary, and then my own views.
Posted in Science Publishing
1 Comment
Top Tips for Dealing with the Press
Some things just get funnier and funnier. On Sunday, Ed Yong (who is not exactly a rocket scientist) put something up on Posterous recounting an exchange with a Press Information Officer. Ed had seen a press release, and wanted to … Continue reading
Posted in Science Publishing, Silliness
8 Comments
More Ideas About Ideas in Ecology and Evolution
A couple of years ago I blogged about a new journal, Ideas in Ecology and Evolution, and it’s experiments in the reviewing process. I was sceptical then, but happy to be shown wrong: I think we need these experiments to … Continue reading
Posted in Science Publishing
11 Comments
Rates of Scientific Fraud Retractions
Ivan Oransky on his Retraction Watch blog pointed to a paper by R. Grant Steen looking at numbers of retraction and whether they were due to fraud or error. Ivan pointed to a news item on The Great Beyond by … Continue reading
Scientific article download costs | Code for Life
Just a quicky… Grant Jacobs has just done a quick survey of the amounts charge for downloads of scientific papers. The cheapest charge $7, and most were $20 or more, the most expensive being $50 – and some only gave … Continue reading
Posted in Science Publishing
16 Comments