Category Archives: scientific publishing

On ‘lower impact’ publishing – it’s better than you might think.

Over the course of the last two or so years, I have had a number of personal issues to deal with. Family illnesses, the sudden death of my older brother and some other things (I will spare you the gory … Continue reading

Posted in Impact Factor, scientific publishing, Uncategorized | 22 Comments

We’ve all got troubles (including the Open Science Framework)

Surprisingly to some and not-so-surprisingly to others, we scientists have our own fair share of troubles in the way we perform our day job – bias, fraud, irreproducibility, lost results, bad data management, difficulty in publishing non-conclusive results. We also … Continue reading

Posted in Bias, scientific publishing | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Am I having impact?

For the last few days there has been some buzz around the non-use of Impact Factors as a criteria for the UK’s Research Excellent Framework. Richard Catlow (head of the Chemistry REF panel) put it in writing here in an … Continue reading

Posted in Impact Factor, science writing, scientific publishing | Tagged , | 2 Comments

What’s in a name?

I had a boyfriend back in the day who wrote music semi-professionally. The best bit of composing a piece of music, according to the boy, was the creative process with another person – that toing and froing of thoughts and … Continue reading

Posted in scientific publishing | Tagged | 3 Comments

Most people don’t worry this much…

is what one of my collaborators told me this week. She was talking about my science, not about my over-arching propensity to worry about everything (although I have that too). I am running a series of experiments, mostly focused on … Continue reading

Posted in Academic dishonesty, Philosophy of Science, scientific publishing | Tagged , | 4 Comments

Why am I writing this?

On scientific publication I have been working on some publications, you know those results-based things that scientists write, submit, are peer-reviewed and with a bit of luck get published in a fantastic journal and then with not as much luck … Continue reading

Posted in Peer review, scientific publishing | Tagged , , , | 13 Comments