Get expert advice to help you get published!

You are here

Publication Buzzwords

From the earliest days of the printing press to speedily disseminating scientific knowledge online through open access journals, academic publishing has come a long way. What are the most important topics of discussion in scholarly publishing today? Stay tuned to this section to know more about the buzzwords in the scholarly publishing industry: journal impact factor, scientific paper retraction, research impact metrics, and more.
Good reads, April 2016
The month of April saw recurring deliberations on interesting topics such as the evolution of peer review and its current state, the Sci-Hub initiative, career development of researchers, retraction, and so forth. This post shares some of the most interesting trends in academia this month.
Good reads, March 2016
The month of March has brought some interesting developments in the scholarly publishing scene: boost in research funding, data sharing mandates, retractions due to honest error and academics' protests in Turkey. This post shares some of the most interesting trends in academia this month.
Can scientific inquiry harm science?
With transparency and reproducibility coming under the spotlight, we frequently encounter statements such as “Science is broken” and “Science needs to be fixed.” Therefore, to ensure the credibility and integrity of published research, various initiatives have been undertaken to channelize scientific inquiry. But can the questioning of published research, in fact, affect science? This post explores different views on this issue and tries to establish whether researchers should be wary of...
Outcome switching in clinical trials
Many researchers indulge in what is known as ‘outcome switching,’ which means the trial report does not include outcomes that are part of the pre-registration, or includes new outcomes without any underlying explanation. Switching of outcomes can have an impact on healthcare and scientific advancement. Why are journal editors and trial sponsors unable to put a stop to this phenomenon? Could accurate reporting in clinical trials help in countering the reproducibility crisis that science is...
Academic publishing and scholarly communications: Good reads, February 2016
In February 2016, the scholarly publishing landscape was abuzz with discussions on topics like irroproducibility, government policy, struggles faced by postdocs, and delays in journal publishing. We tracked several science forums and blogs to follow up on these discussions and bring you an overview in this post. Happy reading!
Safeguarding yourself against predatory journals: A case study
Often, bogus or predatory journals send email invitations to authors to submit their articles, luring them with promises of quick publication. What happens when an author falls prey to such a bogus journal? How can authors assess the credibility of a journal?
Protect research from predatory publishers
Have you received an e-mail inviting you to submit your paper to a journal that sounds familiar and the list of editorial board members are well-credentialed professionals? Their invitations are tempting, promising speedy peer review and publication. If you’re a new author who is eager to publish, you might respond. And you might be dismayed to find that, upon submission, a hefty article processing fee is charged and your article receives little or no dissemination. This article takes a look at...
National Science Foundation's report
Globally, science and technology is making great strides. Remarkably, developing nations are fast catching up with the developed nations in terms of R&D investment, technological advances, research output, and research outreach. To map these changes and latest trends world over, the NSF has put together a report Science & Engineering Indicators 2016 that was released in January 2016. 
misrepresenting science
Time and again, the media has been accused of distorting the image of science. But is bad journalism the only reason behind the mistrust in and misrepresentation of science? A recently published study made an interesting revelation that journals are as responsible as, or maybe even more than media, for biased reporting of science. So who’s responsible for misrepresenting science – media or journals?
While the advocates of open science stress on transparency and accessibility, there is a growing sentiment among some scientific folk about the need for nondisclosure of certain details in publishing, to counter the the “status over merit” culture of academia. This article explores the role anonymity plays in scientific publication and whether removing all indentifiers from a published work would help science.