|
|
|
|
Issue 16, October 3rd, 2014
|
|
Beginning in 2015, SciELO Brazil will operate under new indexing criteria based on complying with a list of requirements and indicators related to the adoption of the lines of action of professionalization, internationalization and financial sustainability promoted by the SciELO Program. These lines of action aim to contribute to the improvement of the performance of the SciELO journals. The leadership of the editors-in-chief is vital to the adoption of these lines of action. The annual meeting of SciELO Brazil will take place in December with a focus on discussions of the evolution of the performance of the journals, and adopting new indexing criteria. [Read more]
|
|
|
In an interview to the Blog SciELO in Perspective, Jaime L. Benchimol discusses the use of social networks and scientific journalism as a challenge to publishers. He shares his experience and presents the history and challenges of História, Ciências, Saúde - Manguinhos, pointing out: “You have to equip yourself properly and, as important as gaining the support of funding agencies, is to convince the leaders of universities and institutions that scientific journals are indispensable and are costly and complex and cannot be made by improvisations and voluntarism of some selflessâ€. [Read more]
|
|
|
|
A recent study concerning the visibility of Latin American scholarly output in open access repositories reveals their poor indexing in Google and Google Scholar. The technical reasons for these problems, which affect the visibility of Latin-American research which, for the most part, is not indexed in either in WoS or Scopus, are explained in this post. [Read more]
|
|
|
|
Andrew Plume and Daphne van Weijen investigate how the pressure researchers feel to publish their work has affected co-authorship patterns over the past 10 years. Are researchers publishing more unique articles or co-authoring more articles? [Read more]
|
|
|
|
Is the growing number of scientific retractions necessarily due to the fruits of pseudoscience? Productive reflection on the subject leads us to the need to recognize the current demands of the scientific system for researchers, conflicts of interests at stake and that science is produced by fallible human beings with their own moral values ​​. Globalization, while supporting misconduct, strengthens social control. Increased retraction of papers is a necessary response of the social control to what some authors refer to as “pseudoscienceâ€. [Read more]
|
|
|
|
III BRISPE: Brazilian Meeting on Research Integrity, Science and Publication Ethics, sponsored by FAPESP, was the third event held in Brazil with the objective to promote institutional policies and practices of ethical research integrity and responsible conduct. With the presence of several prestigious guests from developed countries, the education strategies to new scientists were analyzed as well as how to reduce bad practices such falsification of data, plagiarism, conflict of interests, manipulation of results, etc. [Read more]
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
