Next Issue
Previous Issue

Table of Contents

Publications, Volume 1, Issue 3 (December 2013), Pages 87-145

  • 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: Review

Open AccessArticle Mandates and the Contributions of Open Genomic Data
Publications 2013, 1(3), 99-112; doi:10.3390/publications1030099
Received: 18 August 2013 / Revised: 30 September 2013 / Accepted: 1 October 2013 / Published: 14 October 2013
PDF Full-text (210 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
This research attempts to seek changing patterns of raw data availability and their correlations with implementations of open mandate policies. With a list of 13,785 journal articles whose authors archived datasets in a popular biomedical data repository after these articles were published [...] Read more.
This research attempts to seek changing patterns of raw data availability and their correlations with implementations of open mandate policies. With a list of 13,785 journal articles whose authors archived datasets in a popular biomedical data repository after these articles were published in journals, this research uses regression analysis to test the correlations between data contributions and mandate implementations. It finds that both funder-based and publisher-based mandates have a strong impact on scholars’ likelihood to contribute to open data repositories. Evidence also suggests that like policies have changed the habit of authors in selecting publishing venues: open access journals have been apparently preferred by those authors whose projects are sponsored by the federal government agencies, and these journals are also highly ranked in the biomedical fields. Various stakeholders, particularly institutional administrators and open access professionals, may find the findings of this research helpful for adjusting data management policies to increase the number of quality free datasets and enhance data usability. The data-sharing example in biomedical studies provides a good case to show the importance of policy-making in the reshaping of scholarly communication. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Open Access - A Review after 10 Years)
Open AccessArticle The Open Access Divide
Publications 2013, 1(3), 113-139; doi:10.3390/publications1030113
Received: 29 August 2013 / Revised: 9 October 2013 / Accepted: 12 October 2013 / Published: 17 October 2013
PDF Full-text (322 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
This paper is an attempt to review various aspects of the open access divide regarding the difference between those academics who support free sharing of data and scholarly output and those academics who do not. It provides a structured description by adopting [...] Read more.
This paper is an attempt to review various aspects of the open access divide regarding the difference between those academics who support free sharing of data and scholarly output and those academics who do not. It provides a structured description by adopting the Ws doctrines emphasizing such questions as who, what, when, where and why for information-gathering. Using measurable variables to define a common expression of the open access divide, this study collects aggregated data from existing open access as well as non-open access publications including journal articles and extensive reports. The definition of the open access divide is integrated into the discussion of scholarship on a larger scale. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Open Access - A Review after 10 Years)
Open AccessArticle Combating Fraud in Medical Research: Research Validation Standards Utilized by the Journal of Surgical Radiology
Publications 2013, 1(3), 140-145; doi:10.3390/publications1030140
Received: 24 October 2013 / Revised: 5 November 2013 / Accepted: 6 November 2013 / Published: 15 November 2013
PDF Full-text (167 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
Fraud in medical publishing has risen to the national spotlight as manufactured and suspect data have led to retractions of papers in prominent journals. Moral turpitude in medical research has led to the loss of National Institute of Health (NIH) grants, directly [...] Read more.
Fraud in medical publishing has risen to the national spotlight as manufactured and suspect data have led to retractions of papers in prominent journals. Moral turpitude in medical research has led to the loss of National Institute of Health (NIH) grants, directly affected patient care, and has led to severe legal ramifications for some authors. While there are multiple checks and balances in medical research to prevent fraud, the final enforcement lies with journal editors and publishers. There is an ethical and legal obligation to make careful and critical examinations of the medical research published in their journals. Failure to follow the highest standards in medical publishing can lead to legal liability and destroy a journal’s integrity. More significant, however, is the protection of the medical profession’s trust with their colleagues and the public they serve. This article discusses various techniques and tools available to editors and publishers that can help curtail fraud in medical publishing. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Misconduct in Scientific Publishing)

Review

Jump to: Research

Open AccessReview Research Misconduct—Definitions, Manifestations and Extent
Publications 2013, 1(3), 87-98; doi:10.3390/publications1030087
Received: 26 August 2013 / Revised: 26 September 2013 / Accepted: 30 September 2013 / Published: 11 October 2013
Cited by 2 | PDF Full-text (185 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
In recent years, the international scientific community has been rocked by a number of serious cases of research misconduct. In one of these, Woo Suk Hwang, a Korean stem cell researcher published two articles on research with ground-breaking results in Science in [...] Read more.
In recent years, the international scientific community has been rocked by a number of serious cases of research misconduct. In one of these, Woo Suk Hwang, a Korean stem cell researcher published two articles on research with ground-breaking results in Science in 2004 and 2005. Both articles were later revealed to be fakes. This paper provides an overview of what research misconduct is generally understood to be, its manifestations and the extent to which they are thought to exist. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Misconduct in Scientific Publishing)

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