Post List

All posts; Tags Include "Library Science"

(Modify Search »)

  • August 18, 2011
  • 04:59 AM
  • 1,519 views

Retractions correlate better with 'Impact Factor' than citations

by Björn Brembs in bjoern.brembs.blog

Thomson Reuters' Impact Factor (IF) is supposed to provide a measure for how often the average publication in a scientific journal is cited and thus a quantitative basis for ranking journals. However, there are (at least) three major problems with the IF:The IF is negotiable and doesn't reflect actual citation counts (source)The IF cannot be reproduced, even if it reflected actual citations (source)The IF is not statistically sound, even if it were reproducible and reflected actual citations (so........ Read more »

  • August 1, 2011
  • 03:01 AM
  • 1,971 views

E-readers in Medical Education

by Dr Shock in Dr Shock MD PhD

Buffer Found an interesting article on the use of e-readers in medical education, the Kindle. The Kindle was used by medical students during family medicine clerkship and by family medicine clerkship preceptors. The e-reader was loaded with medical textbooks and other relevant material such as guidelines. The hypotheses was that the information demand during education [...]


No related posts.... Read more »

Shurtz, S., & von Isenburg, M. (2011) Exploring e-readers to support clinical medical education: two case studies. Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 99(2), 110-117. DOI: 10.3163/1536-5050.99.2.002  

  • July 29, 2011
  • 09:00 AM
  • 1,673 views

Taxonomist as science survivalists

by Zen Faulkes in NeuroDojo

Just over a week ago, a vote by botanists at the International Botanical Congress decided to allow species names to be considered valid if they are published only electronically. Nature talks about this in this editorial. (Not only were botanists wedded to paper publication, but having species descriptions in Latin. Latin? I had no idea.)

Zoologists, from what I’ve read so far, think that botanists made a bad decision.

Because zoologists are bitter about their floppy disks.


Okay, perhaps n........ Read more »

  • June 28, 2011
  • 04:31 PM
  • 1,973 views

Impact Factor Boxing 2011

by Duncan Hull in O'Really?

[This post is part of an ongoing series about impact factors] Well it’s that time again. The annual sweaty fist-fight for supremacy between the scientific journals, as measured by impact factors, is upon us. Much ink (virtual and actual) has been spilt on the subject of impact factors, which we won’t add to here, other [...]... Read more »

  • June 20, 2011
  • 06:55 PM
  • 2,112 views

Peer Reviewed Monday – Scaffolding Evaluation Skills

by Anne-Marie Deitering in info-fetishist

So this week we’re also behind a paywall, I think.  Someday I will have time to actually go looking for Peer Reviewed Monday articles that meet a set of standards, but right now we’re still in the “something I read in real life this week” phase. And this one was interesting – so far, when [...]... Read more »

Nicolaidou, I., Kyza, E., Terzian, F., Hadjichambis, A., & Kafouris, D. (2011) A framework for scaffolding students' assessment of the credibility of evidence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. DOI: 10.1002/tea.20420  

  • June 13, 2011
  • 04:02 PM
  • 1,023 views

Peer Reviewed Monday – Expertise Reversal Theory

by Anne-Marie Deitering in info-fetishist

Okay. So I am pretty sure that the actual article I am pointing to here (probably behind a pay wall – sorry) is not peer-reviewed.  It is the editors’ introduction to a special issue of the journal Instructional Science.  In this introduction they tell us that there are five empirical research reports and two commentary [...]... Read more »

  • May 30, 2011
  • 12:00 PM
  • 1,909 views

Prelim Finding The Holdouts: Who Is Required To Publicly Archive Data But Still Doesn’t?

by Heather Piwowar in Research Remix

Knowing who is least likely to publicly archive data, even when required to do so, could help us uncover unrecognized hurdles in data archiving tools, policies, practice, and culture. The results could be used to study these issues and direct educational and policy resources as necessary.... Read more »

Piwowar HA. (2011) Data from: Who shares? Who doesn’t? Factors associated with openly archiving raw research data. Dryad Digital Repository. info:/doi:10.5061/dryad.mf1sd

  • May 19, 2011
  • 01:00 PM
  • 2,115 views

Full Text And Details For Nature Letter “Data Archiving Is A Good Investment”

by Heather Piwowar in Research Remix

We hope publishing the argument in this high-visibility venue will inspire hallway conversations amongst scientists and influence how they view long-term data archive funding. Particularly those scientists who also wear hats in funding agencies!... Read more »

Piwowar, HA, Vision, TJ, & Whitlock, MC. (2011) Data archiving is a good investment. Nature, 473(7347), 285-285. DOI: 10.1038/473285a  

Piwowar HA, Vision TJ, & Whitlock MC. (2011) Data from: Data archiving is a good investment. Dryad Digital Repository. info:/10.5061/dryad.j1fd7

  • December 20, 2010
  • 06:47 PM
  • 1,494 views

Has the online search displaced the friend as the preferred first information source?

by Christina Pikas in Christina's LIS Rant

Review of a JASIST article looking at selection of information sources: co-workers or electronic resources.... Read more »

  • December 8, 2010
  • 10:15 AM
  • 1,420 views

Science Bloggers: Diversifying the news

by Peter Janiszewski, Ph.D. in Science of Blogging

Editor’s Note: When we said we wanted Science of Blogging to pick the brains of the best and brightest in the online science world, we weren’t kidding! Today, I’m excited to share a wonderful post by fellow Canadian, Colin Shultz. Colin is a science journalist, who regularly discusses fascinating topics on his blog and is... Read more »

Walejko, G., & Ksiazek, T. (2010) BLOGGING FROM THE NICHES. Journalism Studies, 11(3), 412-427. DOI: 10.1080/14616700903407429  

  • December 6, 2010
  • 09:00 AM
  • 2,039 views

non-Traditional family structures and genomics

by Trey in OpenHelix

As I and my family await our 23andme kit to scan our genomes, family history has come back to the forefront of my thoughts. I used to be very fascinated by my own genealogy, and with adopted children, the concepts of descent, biology and culture have taken adjusted meanings for me. It’s why we have a ‘family map’ instead of a ‘family tree’. The difference between our cultural genealogy and our genetic genealogy has been become quite clear to me. Obtaining our family........ Read more »

  • December 1, 2010
  • 09:08 AM
  • 1,384 views

Can you trust a science blog?

by Peter Janiszewski, Ph.D. in Science of Blogging

I recently came across a new editorial in Analytics Chemistry by Royce Murray entitled, Science Blogs and Caveat Emptor. The main thesis of the editorial is that you can trust peer-reviewed literature, you can trust mainstream science news, but when it comes to science blogs – caveat emptor. Murray states the following: “I firmly believe... Read more »

Royce Murray. (2010) Science Blogs and Caveat Emptor. Analytical Chemistry, 82(21), 8755-8755. DOI: 10.1021/ac102628p  

  • November 11, 2010
  • 09:00 AM
  • 1,041 views

Expanding retraction

by Zen Faulkes in NeuroDojo

Should a scientific paper be retracted because it is mistaken?

We’re not talking here about misconduct, or deliberate fraud. We’re talking about a result that is, for whatever reason, wrong.

At the Retraction Watch blog, Tom DeCoursey argues that papers that are wrong should be retracted from the scientific record. His main argument is that people waste a lot of time trying to reproduce results that later papers have been unable to confirm.

This may be a rather different view of retractio........ Read more »

Horton R. (1995) Revising the research record. The Lancet, 346(8990), 1610-1611. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(95)91935-X  

Snodgrass GL, & Pfeifer MP. (1982) The characteristics of medical retraction notices. Bull Med Libr Assoc, 80(4), 328-334. info:/

  • October 28, 2010
  • 05:48 PM
  • 1,127 views

Publishing Open Access is Good for Your Academic Reputation

by Hadas Shema in Information Culture

In the academic world, reputation is the currency of choice. "Reputation," of course, is a very loose term and can include anything from publishing in high-impact journals to being a good advisor to your students. How does OA contribute to your academic reputation?The first significant scholarly repository, arXiv.org, was started by high-energy physicists, but quickly expanded to include other scientific disciplines. Today, archiving in arXiv.org is practically a necessity for physicists. Archiv........ Read more »

  • October 20, 2010
  • 07:33 AM
  • 1,574 views

The Matthew Effect Strikes Again

by Hadas Shema in Information Culture

The new Bornmann, de Moya Anegón and Leydesdorff paper, published in PLOS ONE, shows that highly cited papers tend to reference other highly cited papers more often. That is true especially for the life science and health science disciplines. Ms. Corbyn from Nature News saved me the need to summarize the paper by writing an excellent article about it. Based on their findings, Bornmann et al. suggested to concentrate funding on already highly-cited researchers and research groups ("A concentrati........ Read more »

Bornmann, L., de Moya Anegón, F., & Leydesdorff, L. (2010) Do Scientific Advancements Lean on the Shoulders of Giants? A Bibliometric Investigation of the Ortega Hypothesis. PLOS ONE, 5(10). info:/10.1371/journal.pone.0013327

  • October 18, 2010
  • 06:21 PM
  • 1,703 views

New in PLoS ONE: Citation rates of self-selected vs. mandated Open Access

by Martin Fenner in Gobbledygook

PLoS ONE today published a paper very relevant to Open Access Week (which started today):
Gargouri Y, Hajjem C, Larivière V, Gingras Y, Carr L, Brody T, Harnad S. Self-Selected or Mandated, Open Access Increases Citation Impact for Higher Quality Research. PLoS ONE. 2010;5(10):e13636+. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013636.
The paper studied the citation rates of papers from four institutions with the longest-standing self-archiving mandate: Southampton University, CERN, Queensland University of Tec........ Read more »

  • October 6, 2010
  • 04:45 PM
  • 1,751 views

How will we ever keep up with 75 Trials and 11 Systematic Reviews a Day?

by Laika in Laika's Medliblog

An interesting paper was published in PLOS Medicine [1]. As an information specialist and working part time for the Cochrane Collaboration* (see below), this topic is close to my heart. The paper, published in PLOS Medicine is written by Hilda Bastian and two of my favorite EBM devotees ànd critics, Paul Glasziou and Iain Chalmers. Their article gives [...]... Read more »

  • October 5, 2010
  • 11:41 PM
  • 951 views

When is webometrics most useful?

by Hadas Shema in Information Culture

Like many terms in Information Science (including 'Information Science' itself) the term 'webometrics' is pretty vague. Björneborn and Ingwersen (2004) defined webometrics as "the study of the quantitative aspects of the construction and use of information resources, structures and technologies on the Web drawing on bibliometric and informetric approaches." I guess this definition will have to do for the time being. Thelwall*, Klitkou, Verbeek, Stuart and Vincent (2010) set out to find in whi........ Read more »

Thelwall, M., Klitkou, A., Verbeek, A., Stuart, D., & Vincent, C. (2010) Policy-relevant Webometrics for individual scientific fields. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(7), 1464-1475. DOI: 10.1002/asi.21345  

  • September 28, 2010
  • 07:38 PM
  • 1,787 views

A Filter for Finding “All Studies on Animal Experimentation in PubMed”

by Laika in Laika's Medliblog

For  an introduction to search filters you can first read this post. Most people searching PubMed try to get rid of publications about animals. But basic scientists and lab animal technicians just want to find those animal studies. PubMed has built-in filters for that: the limits. There is a limit  for “humans” and a limit for “animals”. [...]... Read more »

  • September 25, 2010
  • 03:48 PM
  • 917 views

It's not what you publish, it's where you publish it

by Hadas Shema in Information Culture

Last post I mentioned the Matthew Effect, or "The rich get richer." In Bibliometrics, it means that the more you're cited and/or the more you publish, the more you'll continue to get cited/publish. When applied to journals, that means that papers published in high-impact journals get cited more often. As a result, the IF of the journals remains high, and so on. In short, a positive feedback loop. However, there's always a question of quality. Perhaps the papers published in high-impact journal........ Read more »

V. Lariviere, & Y. Gingras. (2010) The impact factor’s Matthew effect: a natural experiment in bibliometrics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2(61), 424-427. info:/10.1002/asi.21232

join us!

Do you write about peer-reviewed research in your blog? Use ResearchBlogging.org to make it easy for your readers — and others from around the world — to find your serious posts about academic research.

If you don't have a blog, you can still use our site to learn about fascinating developments in cutting-edge research from around the world.

Register Now

Research Blogging is powered by SRI Technology.

To learn more, visit http://selfregulationinstitute.org/.