'Journalologists' Use Scientific Methods to Study Academic Publishing - Is Their Work Improving Science?. Couzin-Frankel, J. 361(6408):1180–1183. !['Journalologists' Use Scientific Methods to Study Academic Publishing - Is Their Work Improving Science? [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex [Summary] In 1989, the inaugural Peer Review Congress marked the birth of what is now sometimes called journalology. Its goal: improving the quality of at least a slice of the scientific record, in part by creating an evidence-based path from how a study was designed to its publication. That medical journals took a leading role isn't surprising: A sloppy paper on quantum dots has never killed anyone, but a clinical trial on a new cancer drug can mean the difference between life and death. The field has steadily grown and has spurred important changes in publication practices. Today, for example, authors register a clinical trial in advance if they want it considered for publication in a major medical journal, so it doesn't vanish if the results aren't what was hoped. And authors and journal editors often pledge to include in their papers details important for assessing and replicating a study. But almost 30 years on, plenty of research questions remain, and journalologists struggle to find the money needed to answer them. [Excerpt] [...] Journalology still hovers on the edge of respectable science, in part because it's often competing with medicine for dollars and attention. Journals are also tough to study and sometimes secretive, and old habits die hard. [...] Today, the world of publishing is changing rapidly. Predatory journals that release articles with little or no peer review have surged. Papers are posted as "preprints" at the same time as they are submitted to journals or even earlier, allowing others to comment. [...] Other times, journal policies to protect reviewers' identities or shield communications with authors hamper research. Or journals may simply decline to offer up information to outsiders. [...]
@article{couzin-frankelJournalologistsUseScientific2018,
title = {'{{Journalologists}}' Use Scientific Methods to Study Academic Publishing - {{Is}} Their Work Improving Science?},
author = {Couzin-Frankel, Jennifer},
date = {2018-09},
journaltitle = {Science},
volume = {361},
pages = {1180--1183},
issn = {0036-8075},
doi = {10.1126/science.aav4758},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav4758},
abstract = {[Summary] In 1989, the inaugural Peer Review Congress marked the birth of what is now sometimes called journalology. Its goal: improving the quality of at least a slice of the scientific record, in part by creating an evidence-based path from how a study was designed to its publication. That medical journals took a leading role isn't surprising: A sloppy paper on quantum dots has never killed anyone, but a clinical trial on a new cancer drug can mean the difference between life and death. The field has steadily grown and has spurred important changes in publication practices. Today, for example, authors register a clinical trial in advance if they want it considered for publication in a major medical journal, so it doesn't vanish if the results aren't what was hoped. And authors and journal editors often pledge to include in their papers details important for assessing and replicating a study. But almost 30 years on, plenty of research questions remain, and journalologists struggle to find the money needed to answer them.
[Excerpt] [...] Journalology still hovers on the edge of respectable science, in part because it's often competing with medicine for dollars and attention. Journals are also tough to study and sometimes secretive, and old habits die hard. [...] Today, the world of publishing is changing rapidly. Predatory journals that release articles with little or no peer review have surged. Papers are posted as "preprints" at the same time as they are submitted to journals or even earlier, allowing others to comment. [...] Other times, journal policies to protect reviewers' identities or shield communications with authors hamper research. Or journals may simply decline to offer up information to outsiders. [...]},
keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-14638479,check-list,epistemology,metaknowledge,peer-review,publication-bias,science-ethics,scientific-communication,scientific-community-self-correction},
number = {6408}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"kuoA7JZPqu7Ss8DYa","bibbaseid":"couzinfrankel-journalologistsusescientificmethodstostudyacademicpublishingistheirworkimprovingscience","authorIDs":[],"author_short":["Couzin-Frankel, J."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"'Journalologists' Use Scientific Methods to Study Academic Publishing - Is Their Work Improving Science?","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Couzin-Frankel"],"firstnames":["Jennifer"],"suffixes":[]}],"date":"2018-09","journaltitle":"Science","volume":"361","pages":"1180–1183","issn":"0036-8075","doi":"10.1126/science.aav4758","url":"https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav4758","abstract":"[Summary] In 1989, the inaugural Peer Review Congress marked the birth of what is now sometimes called journalology. Its goal: improving the quality of at least a slice of the scientific record, in part by creating an evidence-based path from how a study was designed to its publication. That medical journals took a leading role isn't surprising: A sloppy paper on quantum dots has never killed anyone, but a clinical trial on a new cancer drug can mean the difference between life and death. The field has steadily grown and has spurred important changes in publication practices. Today, for example, authors register a clinical trial in advance if they want it considered for publication in a major medical journal, so it doesn't vanish if the results aren't what was hoped. And authors and journal editors often pledge to include in their papers details important for assessing and replicating a study. But almost 30 years on, plenty of research questions remain, and journalologists struggle to find the money needed to answer them. [Excerpt] [...] Journalology still hovers on the edge of respectable science, in part because it's often competing with medicine for dollars and attention. Journals are also tough to study and sometimes secretive, and old habits die hard. [...] Today, the world of publishing is changing rapidly. Predatory journals that release articles with little or no peer review have surged. Papers are posted as \"preprints\" at the same time as they are submitted to journals or even earlier, allowing others to comment. [...] Other times, journal policies to protect reviewers' identities or shield communications with authors hamper research. Or journals may simply decline to offer up information to outsiders. [...]","keywords":"*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-14638479,check-list,epistemology,metaknowledge,peer-review,publication-bias,science-ethics,scientific-communication,scientific-community-self-correction","number":"6408","bibtex":"@article{couzin-frankelJournalologistsUseScientific2018,\n title = {'{{Journalologists}}' Use Scientific Methods to Study Academic Publishing - {{Is}} Their Work Improving Science?},\n author = {Couzin-Frankel, Jennifer},\n date = {2018-09},\n journaltitle = {Science},\n volume = {361},\n pages = {1180--1183},\n issn = {0036-8075},\n doi = {10.1126/science.aav4758},\n url = {https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav4758},\n abstract = {[Summary] In 1989, the inaugural Peer Review Congress marked the birth of what is now sometimes called journalology. Its goal: improving the quality of at least a slice of the scientific record, in part by creating an evidence-based path from how a study was designed to its publication. That medical journals took a leading role isn't surprising: A sloppy paper on quantum dots has never killed anyone, but a clinical trial on a new cancer drug can mean the difference between life and death. The field has steadily grown and has spurred important changes in publication practices. Today, for example, authors register a clinical trial in advance if they want it considered for publication in a major medical journal, so it doesn't vanish if the results aren't what was hoped. And authors and journal editors often pledge to include in their papers details important for assessing and replicating a study. But almost 30 years on, plenty of research questions remain, and journalologists struggle to find the money needed to answer them.\n\n[Excerpt] [...] Journalology still hovers on the edge of respectable science, in part because it's often competing with medicine for dollars and attention. Journals are also tough to study and sometimes secretive, and old habits die hard. [...] Today, the world of publishing is changing rapidly. Predatory journals that release articles with little or no peer review have surged. Papers are posted as \"preprints\" at the same time as they are submitted to journals or even earlier, allowing others to comment. [...] Other times, journal policies to protect reviewers' identities or shield communications with authors hamper research. Or journals may simply decline to offer up information to outsiders. [...]},\n keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-14638479,check-list,epistemology,metaknowledge,peer-review,publication-bias,science-ethics,scientific-communication,scientific-community-self-correction},\n number = {6408}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Couzin-Frankel, J."],"key":"couzin-frankelJournalologistsUseScientific2018","id":"couzin-frankelJournalologistsUseScientific2018","bibbaseid":"couzinfrankel-journalologistsusescientificmethodstostudyacademicpublishingistheirworkimprovingscience","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav4758"},"keyword":["*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM","~INRMM-MiD:c-14638479","check-list","epistemology","metaknowledge","peer-review","publication-bias","science-ethics","scientific-communication","scientific-community-self-correction"],"downloads":0},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://tmpfiles.org/dl/58794/INRMM.bib","creationDate":"2020-07-02T22:41:04.709Z","downloads":0,"keywords":["*imported-from-citeulike-inrmm","~inrmm-mid:c-14638479","check-list","epistemology","metaknowledge","peer-review","publication-bias","science-ethics","scientific-communication","scientific-community-self-correction"],"search_terms":["journalologists","use","scientific","methods","study","academic","publishing","work","improving","science","couzin-frankel"],"title":"'Journalologists' Use Scientific Methods to Study Academic Publishing - Is Their Work Improving Science?","year":null,"dataSources":["DXuKbcZTirdigFKPF"]}