Search

Peer review has been the principal way of evaluating scientific articles, ensuring that publications meet standards of methodology, integrity, and ethics. Occasionally, however, reviews are suboptimal, especially those by inexperienced reviewers. Therefore, this article offers suggestions on how to review a scientific article. Some of the most important suggestions include submitting the review in a timely fashion without undue delay, not breeching confidentiality, focusing mainly on the methodology, following specific format, and avoiding embarrassing comments to the authors.

Quantifying and comparing the scientific output of researchers has become critical for governments, funding agencies and universities. Comparison by reputation and direct assessment of contributions to the field is no longer possible, as the number of scientists increases and traditional definitions about scientific fields become blurred. The h-index is often used for comparing scientists, but has several well-documented shortcomings. In this paper, we introduce a new index for measuring and comparing the publication records of scientists: the pagerank-index (symbolised as π). The index uses a version of pagerank algorithm and the citation networks of papers in its computation, and is fundamentally different from the existing variants of h-index because it considers not only the number of citations but also the actual impact of each citation. We adapt two approaches to demonstrate the utility of the new index. Firstly, we use a simulation model of a community of authors, whereby we create various 'groups' of authors which are different from each other in inherent publication habits, to show that the pagerank-index is fairer than the existing indices in three distinct scenarios: (i) when authors try to 'massage' their index by publishing papers in low-quality outlets primarily to self-cite other papers (ii) when authors collaborate in large groups in order to obtain more authorships (iii) when authors spend most of their time in producing genuine but low quality publications that would massage their index. Secondly, we undertake two real world case studies: (i) the evolving author community of quantum game theory, as defined by Google Scholar (ii) a snapshot of the high energy physics (HEP) theory research community in arXiv. In both case studies, we find that the list of top authors vary very significantly when h-index and pagerank-index are used for comparison. We show that in both cases, authors who have collaborated in large groups and/or published less impactful papers tend to be comparatively favoured by the h-index, whereas the pagerank-index highlights authors who have made a relatively small number of definitive contributions, or written papers which served to highlight the link between diverse disciplines, or typically worked in smaller groups. Thus, we argue that the pagerank-index is an inherently fairer and more nuanced metric to quantify the publication records of scientists compared to existing measures.

Background: We studied the type and frequency of differences between data presented in conference abstracts and subsequent published papers in the fields of infectious diseases and microbiology. Methods: We reviewed all abstracts from the first session of 7 of 15 major research categories presented in the 1999 and 2000 Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. For each selected pair of abstract and related published paper, two independent investigators performed a detailed data comparison. Results: From 190 abstracts reviewed, 68 (36%) were subsequently published as full papers by March 2004. Fifty-two pairs referred to the same study population and period. Differences were found in 30 of 51 pairs, which were further analyzed (point estimate=59%, 95% C.I.: 45-73%). The identified differences were related to both the aims and conclusions of the study (3/30), the study conclusions only (2/30), numbers and/or rates of the studied patients (10/30), numbers or rates of microbiological isolates (9/30), MIC values or Ki values (5/30), other pharmacological properties of antibiotics (2/30), odds ratio (1/30), and duration of observation (1/30). Some differences were considered major. In bivariable associations, time to publication (from presentation in the conference to publication of the full paper) was associated with identifiable differences between the conference abstract and the full paper (OR=1.76, 95% CI 0.95-3.24/year of delay, P=0.07). Conclusions: It is reassuring that although we identified several reportable differences, only a very small proportion of studies exhibited differences in their aims and/or conclusions. Researchers may benefit from the above findings in improving the accuracy of presented data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

'Escape from the Dead Letter Office: Smuggled Birds and the Paperless Body in the Americas' brings together Eduardo Galeano's Century of the Wind, Carolina Maria de Jesus' Child of the Dark and Herman Melville's 'Bartleby, the scrivener' in an analysis of dead letters. The essay suggests the metonymic relationship between textual and physical bodies. It traces a motif of paper - recycled newspapers, stolen archives, incinerated codices, paper money, letter-writing campaigns - in order to investigate the ways in which marginalized communities are exiled from the world of letters. This 'paperlessness' serves as a prophecy for more terrifying disappearances, and the theoretical contributions of Jacques Derrida, Henry Louis Gates, Jr., Karl Marx, Roberto González Echevarría, and Lisa Sánchez González inform the analysis. The article itself commits to paper the resourcefulness of individuals and organizations in procuring paper for communities under siege. It seeks to bring the material aspect of literacy into clearer focus by investigating the ways in which paper circulates and is robbed of circulation, how paper is consumed literally and figuratively, and why the weight of paper can be the measure of its value. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author discusses the use of paper on the publication of magazines and journals and its comparison including its advantages compared to the use of internet in publication.

Provides instructions and guidelines to prospective authors who wish to submit manuscripts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the intricacy attached with reviewing of papers of authors by reviewers leading to difference of opinions. It mentions that reviewers are often asked to review papers as promoters. It suggests to reviewers to discard the approach of Accept, Minor Revisions and Major Revisions while reviewing papers. It also recommends that they must reject paper with central flow which devalues it and explain as to why it can not be published.

Nothing can be more exciting to a researcher than publication of his work in a peer reviewed journal. Every journal issues its own guidelines for authors for preparation of manuscript. However the generally accepted format used by most of the journals is what is popularly known as the "IMRAD" format, an acronym for Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion. This article aims to provide a basic idea of IMRAD to help young researchers in drafting their manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A recent paper by Gupta and Ravindran (7) describes a network model developed to determine the optimal number of shelf-heights to use to minimize the shelving cost for a given collection of books if shelved by size. The following notes amplify some aspects of this work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author announces that the Society of American Foresters made the printing of the "Journal of Forestry" on Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI)-certified paper. The journal is also printed through a SFI chain-of-custody certified printer. The organization, who believes in the value of forest certification, plans to continue to print with certified paper whenever possible.

The article provides information on the requirements for the presentation of material submitted for consideration for publication. Typescripts submissions must be in duplicate, typewritten, double-spaced throughout, on one side only of A4 paper, with left and right margins of at least 4 cm. Mathematical formula should be produced in a single-line form. Use of abbreviations must be provided for each paper submitted. Illustrations must consist of good quality original drawings on white art paper of tracing paper, bromide prints of the same.