标题
Reliable novelty: New should not trump true
作者
关键词
Scientific publishing, Research validity, Peer review, Scientists, Citation analysis, Behavior, Computer modeling, Reproducibility
出版物
PLOS BIOLOGY
Volume 17, Issue 2, Pages e3000117
出版商
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
发表日期
2019-02-13
DOI
10.1371/journal.pbio.3000117
参考文献
相关参考文献
注意：仅列出部分参考文献，下载原文获取全部文献信息。- A proposal for the future of scientific publishing in the life sciences
- (2019) Bodo M. Stern et al. PLOS BIOLOGY
- Prestigious Science Journals Struggle to Reach Even Average Reliability
- (2018) Björn Brembs Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
- Radical open-access plan could spell end to journal subscriptions
- (2018) Holly Else NATURE
- Post retraction citations in context: a case study
- (2017) Judit Bar-Ilan et al. SCIENTOMETRICS
- Empirical assessment of published effect sizes and power in the recent cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature
- (2017) Denes Szucs et al. PLOS BIOLOGY
- Low statistical power in biomedical science: a review of three human research domains
- (2017) Estelle Dumas-Mallet et al. Royal Society Open Science
- Why do some retracted papers continue to be cited?
- (2016) Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva et al. SCIENTOMETRICS
- Current Incentives for Scientists Lead to Underpowered Studies with Erroneous Conclusions
- (2016) Andrew D. Higginson et al. PLOS BIOLOGY
- Relative Citation Ratio (RCR): A New Metric That Uses Citation Rates to Measure Influence at the Article Level
- (2016) B. Ian Hutchins et al. PLOS BIOLOGY
- The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship
- (2016) Mark D. Wilkinson et al. Scientific Data
- The natural selection of bad science
- (2016) Paul E. Smaldino et al. Royal Society Open Science
- Perpetuation of Retracted Publications Using the Example of the Scott S. Reuben Case: Incidences, Reasons and Possible Improvements
- (2015) Helmar Bornemann-Cimenti et al. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS
- Use of positive and negative words in scientific PubMed abstracts between 1974 and 2014: retrospective analysis
- (2015) Christiaan H Vinkers et al. BMJ-British Medical Journal
- Risk of Bias in Reports of In Vivo Research: A Focus for Improvement
- (2015) Malcolm R. Macleod et al. PLOS BIOLOGY
- Use of positive and negative words in scientific PubMed abstracts between 1974 and 2014: retrospective analysis
- (2015) Christiaan H Vinkers et al. BMJ-British Medical Journal
- The N-Pact Factor: Evaluating the Quality of Empirical Journals with Respect to Sample Size and Statistical Power
- (2014) R. Chris Fraley et al. PLoS One
- Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank
- (2013) Björn Brembs et al. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
- Field-normalized impact factors (IFs): A comparison of rescaling and fractionally counted IFs
- (2013) Loet Leydesdorff et al. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
- Open access: The true cost of science publishing
- (2013) Richard Van Noorden NATURE
- Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience
- (2013) Katherine S. Button et al. NATURE REVIEWS NEUROSCIENCE
- Toward a New Model of Scientific Publishing: Discussion and a Proposal
- (2011) Dwight J. Kravitz et al. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
- Impact Factor
- (2009) Miguel A. Hernán EPIDEMIOLOGY
- Bias in genetic association studies and impact factor
- (2009) M R Munafò et al. MOLECULAR PSYCHIATRY
- An investigation into diabetes researcher’s perceptions of the Journal Impact Factor — reconsidering evaluating research
- (2008) Eva M. Sønderstrup-Andersen et al. SCIENTOMETRICS
Discover Peeref hubs
Discuss science. Find collaborators. Network.
Join a conversationAsk a Question. Answer a Question.
Quickly pose questions to the entire community. Debate answers and get clarity on the most important issues facing researchers.
Get Started