Search

The authors discuss science publishing. They states that 2011 became the year of retraction which has risen 15-fold while the number of papers increased by less than 50%. They mention that the requirement of new findings discussed a retraction or correction to be peer reviewed can keep the scientific record as up-to-date as possible. They note that the long-term credibility of the scientific record will boost if scientists and journals consider post-publication peer review.

The article focuses on the impact a Russian amended law concerning state secrets is having on science publishing by Russian scientists. It states President Vladimir Putin used a decree in May 2015 expanding the scope of a law requiring scientists get permission from the Federal Security Service prior to publishing results which could have industrial or military applications. It reports Russian universities are requiring scientists seek approval to the publication of any findings without exception.

Reports on the findings of a review of scientific papers from fourteen journals that found one third of the lead authors had a direct financial interest in the published research. The report in the journal `Science and Engineering Ethics'; A list of the journals that were reviewed; Details of the study.

The article reports on the efforts of U.S. government to make scientific research available for all. It reports that the accessibility offered by the Internet has transformed science publishing over the past decade. The government of the U.S. is making efforts to make all federally funded research available for free. The new system will make huge numbers of scientific articles publicly available for all. It reports that such archives will basically contain the final versions of the manuscripts written by the authors. There was an increase in public access in late 2007 when the U.S. Congress passed a bill and made it compulsory for scientists funded by the National Institute of Health (NIH) to deposit their papers within 12 months of publication.

Discusses the lack of high-quality research papers published by scientists from China. Factors attributed to the trend; Comparison in the number of high-impact papers published by scientists from China and the United States; Solutions to the low number of productive biologists.

The article provides an overview of the scientific journal database Nature Index 2015 Global. Topics cited include the collaboration among scientists and their colleagues from other regions, dominance of Africa in terms of the level of collaboration, use of weighted fractional count to measure the performance of countries in scientific publishing, and rank of Israel in terms of research funding.

Comments on an article about the national system for evaluating researchers' productivity in Spain. Factors that indicate research quality; Significance of the systems for publication quality evaluation; Impact of publication law on the publication habits of scientists.

Offers suggestions to solve the problem of giving credit for unpublished data. Problems caused in the genome-sequencing community by posting unpublished data in publicly accessible databases; Importance of licensing agreements, to protect data from improper use; How 'Nature' magazine intends to handle submissions that may contain uncredited data.