What can I share? Here at fig share , we appreciate that the name can sometime be misleading. It literally means the sharing of figures, nothing to do with the fruit. Last weekend at scifoo , this topic of conversation came up with Michael Nielsen , who wondered if people may just think that we host static images.
Feb 24th, 2012 by The Editors The Evolution & Medicine Review » Blog Archive » Evolutionary Medicine Course August 6-10 at Mt. Desert Island
Three Finnish researchers have created an online service that could eventually replace or supplement the current way journals get scientists to peer review submitted manuscripts. Online Social Network Seeks to Overhaul Peer Review in Scientific Publishing
Scientists, Fight For Access! | EvoEcoLab Ask many scientists what they believe separates the pursuit of scientific inquiry from most everything else and you’ll get a wide range of open-ended, flowery, idealistic, and nearly altruistic, statements like ”unlock the mysteries of the world”, “the thrill of discovery”, “making a meaningful contribution to society”, or “improving people’s lives”.
Access to information is crucial for science
Pas un nouveau journalisme scientifique, mais un nouveau journalisme L’association française Acrimed organise le 8 décembre un débat intitulé « Un autre journalisme scientifique est-il possible? ». Elle s’inquiète, à juste titre, que les sciences soient chroniquement marginalisées dans nos médias, « reléguées dans des rubriques secondaires ».
Journals — BMJ Group
Group blogs: BMJ Web Development Blog » Blog Archive » BMJ Group journal articles now contain ‘Citing articles via Web of Science’ links 8 Apr, 11 | by Claire Bower, Digital Comms Manager, @clairebower
Wiley Open Access Wiley Open Access is an initiative from Wiley to drive quality peer reviewed publishing with speed and efficiency through open access publication.
Oxford Open | Oxford Open participating titles
Journal of Biology
Many are quick to criticize the peer review process, but are there any viable alternatives? Anyone who doubts the inefficiencies and flaws of the current peer-review system would do well to read a review article published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience (Dec 2011) and evaluated for F1000 by Gary Aston-Jones and David Moorman . The article, entitled “Toward a new model of scientific publishing: discussion and a proposal” by Dwight Kravitz and Chris Baker of the National Institute of Mental Health at the US NIH, highlights several serious problems with the scientific publishing machine. How to overhaul peer review and scientific publishing