Next Issue
Previous Issue

Table of Contents

Publications, Volume 2, Issue 1 (March 2014), Pages 1-43

  • Issues are regarded as officially published after their release is announced to the table of contents alert mailing list.
  • You may sign up for e-mail alerts to receive table of contents of newly released issues.
  • PDF is the official format for papers published in both, html and pdf forms. To view the papers in pdf format, click on the "PDF Full-text" link, and use the free Adobe Readerexternal link to open them.
View options order results:
result details:
Displaying articles 1-4
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Other

Open AccessArticle A Novel Rubric for Rating the Quality of Retraction Notices
Publications 2014, 2(1), 14-26; doi:10.3390/publications2010014
Received: 21 November 2013 / Revised: 15 January 2014 / Accepted: 20 January 2014 / Published: 24 January 2014
Cited by 2 | PDF Full-text (588 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
When a scientific article is found to be either fraudulent or erroneous, one course of action available to both the authors and the publisher is to retract said article. Unfortunately, not all retraction notices properly inform the reader of the problems with a
[...] Read more.
When a scientific article is found to be either fraudulent or erroneous, one course of action available to both the authors and the publisher is to retract said article. Unfortunately, not all retraction notices properly inform the reader of the problems with a retracted article. This study developed a novel rubric for rating and standardizing the quality of retraction notices, and used it to assess the retraction notices of 171 retracted articles from 15 journals. Results suggest the rubric to be a robust, if preliminary, tool. Analysis of the retraction notices suggest that their quality has not improved over the last 50 years, that it varies both between and within journals, and that it is dependent on the field of science, the author of the retraction notice, and the reason for retraction. These results indicate a lack of uniformity in the retraction policies of individual journals and throughout the scientific literature. The rubric presented in this study could be adopted by journals to help standardize the writing of retraction notices. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Misconduct in Scientific Publishing)
Open AccessArticle A Case-Control Comparison of Retracted and Non-Retracted Clinical Trials: Can Retraction Be Predicted?
Publications 2014, 2(1), 27-37; doi:10.3390/publications2010027
Received: 7 September 2013 / Revised: 9 October 2013 / Accepted: 10 October 2013 / Published: 27 January 2014
PDF Full-text (253 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
Does scientific misconduct severe enough to result in retraction disclose itself with warning signs? We test a hypothesis that variables in the results section of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are associated with retraction, even without access to raw data. We evaluated all English-language
[...] Read more.
Does scientific misconduct severe enough to result in retraction disclose itself with warning signs? We test a hypothesis that variables in the results section of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are associated with retraction, even without access to raw data. We evaluated all English-language RCTs retracted from the PubMed database prior to 2011. Two controls were selected for each case, matching publication journal, volume, issue, and page as closely as possible. Number of authors, subjects enrolled, patients at risk, and patients treated were tallied in cases and controls. Among case RCTs, 17.5% had ≤2 authors, while 6.3% of control RCTs had ≤2 authors. Logistic regression shows that having few authors is associated with retraction (p < 0.03), although the number of subjects enrolled, patients at risk, or treated patients is not. However, none of the variables singly, nor all of the variables combined, can reliably predict retraction, perhaps because retraction is such a rare event. Exploratory analysis suggests that retraction rate varies by medical field (p < 0.001). Although retraction cannot be predicted on the basis of the variables evaluated, concern is warranted when there are few authors, enrolled subjects, patients at risk, or treated patients. Ironically, these features urge caution in evaluating any RCT, since they identify studies that are statistically weaker. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Misconduct in Scientific Publishing)
Open AccessArticle The Means of (Re-)Production: Expertise, Open Tools, Standards and Communication
Publications 2014, 2(1), 38-43; doi:10.3390/publications2010038
Received: 23 January 2014 / Revised: 7 February 2014 / Accepted: 10 February 2014 / Published: 13 February 2014
PDF Full-text (158 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
This article examines the current difficulties faced in penetrating the world of scholarly communication technology. While there have been large strides forward in the disintermediation of digital publishing expertise—most notably by the Public Knowledge Project—a substantial number of barriers remain. This paper examines
[...] Read more.
This article examines the current difficulties faced in penetrating the world of scholarly communication technology. While there have been large strides forward in the disintermediation of digital publishing expertise—most notably by the Public Knowledge Project—a substantial number of barriers remain. This paper examines a case study in terms of scholarly typesetting and the Journal Article Tag Suite (JATS) standard before moving to suggest three potential solutions: (1) The formation of open, non-commercial and inclusive (but structured) organizations dedicated to the group exploration and standardisation of scholarly publishing technology; (2) The collective authoring of as much technological and process documentation on scholarly publishing as is possible; (3) The modularisation of platforms and agreement on standards of interoperability. Only through such measures is it possible for researchers to reclaim the means of (re)production, for the remaining barriers are not difficult to understand, merely hard to discover. Full article

Other

Jump to: Research

Open AccessCase Report Chinese Doctors Connecting to the English Publishing World: Literature Access, Editorial Services, and Training in Publication Skills
Publications 2014, 2(1), 1-13; doi:10.3390/publications2010001
Received: 18 November 2013 / Revised: 20 December 2013 / Accepted: 23 December 2013 / Published: 31 December 2013
Cited by 3 | PDF Full-text (219 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
In the literature on academic publishing, little attention has been paid to the needs and concerns of non-English-speaking researchers in professional contexts. This paper addresses the gap in that literature by providing insights into the situation with medical doctors in China. Following an
[...] Read more.
In the literature on academic publishing, little attention has been paid to the needs and concerns of non-English-speaking researchers in professional contexts. This paper addresses the gap in that literature by providing insights into the situation with medical doctors in China. Following an overview of the broad picture, I will report a case study, which was conducted at a major hospital in East China and which aimed at exploring how a group of orthopedic surgeons access the English medical literature and to what extent they seek the support of editorial services and training in academic writing/publication skills. The results of the study show that the participant doctors tend to rely on their students or overseas personal connections for access to full-text medical literature, and they have generally had limited experience with language editorial services and academic writing/publication skills seminars. The paper ends by discussing some challenges while proposing recommendations for enhancing Chinese doctors’ access to the full-text medical literature, as well as their understanding of the kind of support that can be provided by editorial services and training in publication skills. Full article

Journal Contact

MDPI AG
Publications Editorial Office
St. Alban-Anlage 66, 4052 Basel, Switzerland
publications@mdpi.com
Tel. +41 61 683 77 34
Fax: +41 61 302 89 18
Editorial Board
Contact Details Submit to Publications
Back to Top