Publishing
Vol 34(1), February 2008
By
Jul 13, 2008 - 5:53 PM

Charlton BG. Medical Hypotheses 2006 impact factor rises to 1.3 – a vindication of the “editorial review” system for revolutionary science. Medical Hypotheses 2007;36:967–969. (doi: 10.1016.j.mehy.2007.07.107)
The journal’s impact factor has doubled since 2004, and it has now entered the mainstream level of “respectable” medical journals in terms of its usage by other scientists, says its editor. The journal aims to publish radical and speculative ideas; a healthy impact factor is important because the journal uses a system of editorial review rather than peer review. As editorial review relies on hard-to-quantify and non- transparent individual judgments, it is important for its outcomes to be open to objective evaluations, such as impact factors and downloads, to show the journal’s usefulness in the dynamic process of science.

Gorman GE. The Delorean or the Mini? Digital imperatives for publishers, digital dilemmas for repositories. Online Information Review 2007;3(6):741–743.
Examines the development of digital publishing and the managing of data preservation. As publishers, writers, and readers are becoming increasingly digital, a greater burden seems to be placed also on libraries and repositories, responsible of finding new and more effective ways of preserving digital artifacts. That is why a symbiotic relationship seems to exist between publishers and institutions charged with maintaining digital artifacts from these publishers.
Guinnessy P. Stakeholders weigh costs of open-access publishing. Physics Today 2007;60(8):29–30. (doi: 10.1063/1.2774090)
As open access moves mainstream, publishers are concerned about who is going to fund their journals.

Hemmings BC, Rushbrook P, Smith E. Academics’ views on publishing refereed works: a content analysis.  Higher Education 2007;54(2):307–332. (doi: 10.1007/s10734-005-8608-x)
A researcher from an Australian university explores academics’ views about publishing (or not) in refereed sources and the perceived worth of this activity. The survey includes many questions to extract information on the factors that either encourage or discourage academics from publishing in peer review journals. The responses are analysed in detail and comparisons are made also on the responses of male and female academics.

Von Elm E,  Altman DG,  Egger M,  Pocock SJ,  Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ 2007;335:806–880. (doi: 10.1136/bmj.39335.541782.AD)
The reporting of observational research in biomedicine is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study’s generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. The revised checklist contains 22 items  that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. Details are freely available on the websites of PLoS Medicine, Epidemiology, and Annals of Internal Medicine.


© Copyright 2008 by European Association of Science Editors