Search

This article describes the criteria for publishing articles in the journal "Automation and Remote Control." Reviewing is pivotal in scientific activity. It is not a simple matter to write a good article unless the author reads his article through the referee's eyes. It is rather easier to review others' works than one's own work. Therefore, the first hint is not to young scholars, but to their supervisors as frequently call in post-graduates to review scientific articles. Objective evaluation of a paper from such a brief abstract is virtually impossible and papers are approved for inclusion in the proceedings largely on the basis of reputation and affiliation of the author.

The article focuses on "Biogeochemistry" periodical's creation of a section titled "Synthesis and Emerging Ideas" to fix a historical imbalance in the publication of science. Methods and data are published in journals where they both widely available and credited. Besides undermining and undervaluing the publication of ideas, this will potentially inhibit younger scientists from writing paper. With increasing electronic access to scientific literature, it has become increasingly important to provide more accessible and credible outlets for important synthesis and theoretical papers. The periodical wants to see the papers and advance the concepts involved in biogeochemistry, that will challenge and expand people's thinking and that will therefore lead to developing new tools and information.

What happens when the scientific tradition of openness clashes with potential societal risks? The work of American toxic-exposure epidemiologists can attract media coverage and lead the public to change health practices, initiate lawsuits, or take other steps a study's authors might consider unwarranted. This paper, reporting data from 61 semi-structured interviews with U.S. toxic-exposure epidemiologists, examines whether such possibilities shaped epidemiologists' selection of journals for potentially sensitive papers. Respondents manifested strong support for the norm of scientific openness, but a significant minority had or would/might, given the right circumstances, publish sensitive data in less visible journals, so as to prevent unwanted media or public attention. Often, even those advocating such limited "burial" upheld openness, claiming that less visible publication allowed them to avoid totally withholding the data from publication. However, 15% of the sample had or would, for the most sensitive types of data, withhold publication altogether. Rather than respondents explaining their actions in terms of an expected split between "pure science" and "social advocacy" models, even those publishing in the more visible journals often described their actions in terms of their "responsibility". Several practical limitations (particularly involving broader access to scientific literature via the Internet) of the strategy of burial are discussed, and some recommendations are offered for scientists, the media, and the public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author reflects on the introduction of a new section entitled "I wish I knew then..." of the journal "Advances in Health Sciences Education." According to the author, the new section aims to provide researchers who are engaging in a research program to make reflections on that program. He stresses that the section is intended for the researchers to reflect on the theoretical choices they made along their research pathway and not to make an argument for why they were right.

The author reflects on chances for scientists to secure their share of financial resources. The author states that to publish experiments, scientists can have a solid paper as the base, pull some data, paraphrase the original paper and then write it all up. The author avers that scientists should pass the new manuscript to a humble journal that the authors of the original paper will not detect the tribute to their work.

The author reflects on the importance of involvement of researchers in scientific literatures and research studies published by other scientist in various periodicals. The participation and endeavor of researchers in the new study proposed by scientists from other regions will help in better execution of researches as well as determination of results of scientific studies. Also investigated is importance of criticism from scientists on conclusions and results derived from research works.

The article offers information to biologists who wish to submit their papers to the journal "Nature." The journal aspires to publish papers that are not only interesting and thought-provoking, but reproducible and useful. To be published, materials and reagents need to be carefully described and readily available to interested scientists.

Acknowledges the valuable support of several scientists who have reviewed papers for the journal "Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry" during 2004. A. Abarnou; J. Abbatt; Y. Abe; R.A. Abuknesha.

This article presents instructions to the researchers for their research papers to be published in the journal "Optical and Quantum Electronics." Optical and Quantum Electronics is published monthly. To keep the review time as short as possible, authors are encouraged to submit manuscripts online to the journal's editorial office. The online manuscript submission and review system offers authors the option to track the progress of the review process of manuscripts in real time. Each figure and table should be numbered and mentioned in the text. The approximate position of figures and tables should be indicated in the margin of the manuscript.

This article reports on developments related to the field of environmental geology. Through a cooperative agreement between the American Geological Institute (AGI) and Geoscience Australia, AusGeoRef, an online database of geoscience references, is now available. The bibliographic database is drawn from the existing GeoRef database, established in 1966, which provides access to over 2.6 million references to journal articles, books, maps, conference papers, reports and theses. AusGeoRef differs in that it only includes references to Australian geology or work done by Australian scientists. The American Geological Institute (AGI) welcomes the American Society of Limnology and Oceanography (ASLO)--unanimously approved by the AGI Member Society Council--as the federation's 43rd member society. ASLO publishes three periodicals. "Limnology and Oceanography," an internationally acclaimed scientific journal founded in 1956 is the most frequently cited among all journals specializing in oceanography or limnology.

The article discusses developments in the journal "High Temperature." According to the author, the journal did not reduce the demands of the level of publications despite of decline in scientific activities in Russia in 1990. The author adds that the journal has largely met the demands of thermophysical science and new advanced technologies such as energy, rocket-and-space and nuclear. The author also mentions that several leading scientists in the country actively cooperate with the journal.

The article discusses various topics featured in the blogs of the "Nature" journal. The retraction of a 2001 paper by Nobel laureate Linda Buck and colleagues triggered discussions on NPG blogs. Debra Speert calls it the highest profile retraction that she can recall in neuroscience and on the "Nature Network" neuroscience forum. Readers are asked to give their opinions on the role of journals and scientists in retracting published work. The journal announces that for retraction or other type of correction to be published, all authors should sign it and if some do not, the editors seek advice from peer reviewers and if necessary, the institution.

The article provides facts about the contributors based in Singapore who are connected to the publication "Nature." Scientist Karuna Sampath heads a team investigating vertebrate development. There are 54 submissions to "Nature" in 2005 from Singapore. Twelve authors working in Singapore contributed to papers published in Nature during 2005.

Presents a call for proposals for scientists who are interested in guest editing a special issue of "Foundations of Science."

The article presents examples of scientific misconduct and plagiarism. It states that scientists learned that results of scientific work was published by the same authors in different journals and different order. However, the content of the publications differed slightly by omitting or adding tables or figures and the conclusions were almost the same. It avers that scientists met affairs of scientific misconduct ranging from replicating text from other scientific papers to falsifying results.

The article reports on the inquiry of a research team led by Tae Kook Kim of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) in Taejon on two articles published in "Science and Nature Chemical Biology" on imaging living cells. Tae Kook Kim reported a new method for imaging living cells that used magnetized nanoparticles. KAIST's investigation is still going but has released some preliminary findings that the scientific truth of the papers was in question. The journal's editor said that the KAIST investigation team told him that the authors wanted to pull back the paper as soon as possible.

The article presents the various perspectives of readers concerning the content and topics that the journal "Nature India" should provide. Bikash Mohanty suggests that the journal must highlight original Indian research and not just publish research which are done in scientifically advanced countries. Arun Kumar Chokkappa mentions that the journal must list funding opportunities that the region has, which would serve as an eye opener for budding scientists who do not have enough fund for their research. He added that "Nature India" can help boost careers by putting students in touch with scientists.

The article discusses the issues regarding the authenticity of the manuscripts submitted for periodical publication. Fraud, plagiarism and misuse of confidential information are observed to have been practiced by some scientist to speed up scientific discoveries and research. The periodical expanded its guidelines to delineate information that will be presented in a published paper.

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of anonymous surveys asking scientists whether they ever committed various forms of plagiarism. From May to December 2011 we searched 35 bibliographic databases, five grey literature databases and hand searched nine journals for potentially relevant studies. We included surveys that asked scientists if, in a given recall period, they had committed or knew of a colleague who committed plagiarism, and from each survey extracted the proportion of those who reported at least one case. Studies that focused on academic (i.e. student) plagiarism were excluded. Literature searches returned 12,460 titles from which 17 relevant survey studies were identified. Meta-analysis of studies reporting committed (N = 7) and witnessed (N = 11) plagiarism yielded a pooled estimate of, respectively, 1.7 % (95 % CI 1.2-2.4) and 30 % (95 % CI 17-46). Basic methodological factors, including sample size, year of survey, delivery method and whether survey questions were explicit rather than indirect made a significant difference on survey results. Even after controlling for these methodological factors, between-study differences in admission rates were significantly above those expected by sampling error alone and remained largely unexplained. Despite several limitations of the data and of this meta-analysis, we draw three robust conclusions: (1) The rate at which scientists report knowing a colleague who committed plagiarism is higher than for data fabrication and falsification; (2) The rate at which scientists report knowing a colleague who committed plagiarism is correlated to that of fabrication and falsification; (3) The rate at which scientists admit having committed either form of misconduct (i.e. fabrication, falsification and plagiarism) in surveys has declined over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on duplicate publication, as discussed various forums and blogs. At the "Nature Publishing Group (NPG)" blogs and forums, one commentary that proposes the subject of widespread duplicate publication has attracted numerous responses. Meanwhile, a debate among scientists have arisen at the publishing in the forum of the New Millennium on Nature Network. It discusses on whether duplicate publication will become a problem in their profession and what are the means that it can be stemmed.

The article focuses on the journal "Chemia Analityczna-Chemical Analysis" which celebrated its 50th anniversary in 2005. the journal has been an organ in the Polish Academy of Science in the Committee of Analytical Chemistry for a long period of time. In 2002, changes were made in its status and name and in 2003 it joined chemical societies of Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, and Czech Republic. Almost half of the articles published in the journals were contributions by foreign scientists.

Provides information on the improvement of the "Nature Methods" according to an electronic mail survey of scientists worldwide. Quality of the scientific information; Development of tools for biological and biomedical research; Diversity of content across disciplines within the life sciences.

Presents a list of scientists who have reviewed the articles published in the 2003 issues of the journal "Oecologia," including F. Alder and S. Albon.

Profiles Janis Stradins, a prominent scientists and former editor in chief of the journal "Chemistry of Heterocyclic Compounds." Educational background of Stradins; Development of procedures for the polarographic determination of organic substances by Stradins; Production of books on the polarography of organic nitro compounds.

The article gratefully acknowledges the works of reviewers who contributed to the journal "Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry." during the period 2003-04. Some of the reviewers are: A. Amine, A. Abarnou, R.A. Abuknesha, F.C. Adams, P. Behrens, E. Beinrohr, E. Benfenati, A. Bengtson, S. Berger, J. Brenner, P. Brown, etc.

Acknowledges the reviewers of articles in the 2003 issues of "Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology." F. Abe of Yokosuka, Japan; P. Alvarez from Iowa City, Iowa in the U.S.; K. Chater of Norwich in Great Britain.