Beall’s 2016 List: Predatory Open-Access Publishers

Librarian Jeffrey Beall has posted his updated list of predatory online open-access publishers, now in a new format:

What Do Authors Want from Peer Review?

Author Services of Taylor & Francis has undertaken a study of researchers’ views and has published Peer Review in 2015: A Global View. Background here:
Topics include: The purpose and benefits of peer review; peer review ethics; the mechanics of peer review; alternative models of peer review.

CFS: Advances in Nursing Science Special Topics Issues

Advances in Nursing Science calls for special topics issues

Our future issue topics:

39:2 – Women & Girls Manuscript Due Date – October 15, 2015

39:3 – Palliative Care Manuscript Due Date – January 15, 2016

39:4 – Toxic Stress- December 2016 Manuscript Due Date – April 15, 2016

40:1 – ANS Retrospective – March 2017 Manuscript Due Date – July 15, 2016

ANS General Topic Submissions open any time

When Reviewers Disagree (or at least contradict each other)

Karen Kelsky, writing for the Chronicle of Higher Education’s Vitae explores the problem when two or more readers’ reports offer conflicting or contradictory suggestions for revision and resubmission. She advises: 1) You don’t have to accept every revision suggestion (though you need to address all of them); reviewers aren’t necessarily experts in your topic so you can disagree with them; and 3) letting go of ego, you can find revision suggestions helpful. The article is on line for subscribers:

Writing Academic Book Reviews

Although the journal article manuscript rather than the academic book is the coin of the realm in the academic nursing’s knowledge economy, nurses do write books and books are written for nurses, which means that readers need book reviews, typically in scholarly or professional journals. How do you secure the opportunity to write a book review? How does one structure a book review?

Casey Brienza explains it all to you:

Owning and Using Scholarship: An IP Handbook for Teachers and Researchers

Director of the Office of Copyright and Scholarly Communication at Duke University, Kevin Smith has published Owning and Using Scholarship: An IP Handbook for Teachers and Researchers. Published by the Association of College and Research Libraries and available in an open-access PDF version, the book provides scholars with a primer to intellectual property issues in the digital age:


How to Correct the Media When They Misreport Your Research

A study published in BMJ 2014;349 reports that mass-media misrepresentations and inaccuracies concerning research findings are often the products of university communication offices’ self-promotion efforts, the result of increasing competition among high education institutions to claim points of pride.

According to this study’s abstract:

Results 40% (95% confidence interval 33% to 46%) of the press releases contained exaggerated advice, 33% (26% to 40%) contained exaggerated causal claims, and 36% (28% to 46%) contained exaggerated inference to humans from animal research. When press releases contained such exaggeration, 58% (95% confidence interval 48% to 68%), 81% (70% to 93%), and 86% (77% to 95%) of news stories, respectively, contained similar exaggeration, compared with exaggeration rates of 17% (10% to 24%), 18% (9% to 27%), and 10% (0% to 19%) in news when the press releases were not exaggerated. Odds ratios for each category of analysis were 6.5 (95% confidence interval 3.5 to 12), 20 (7.6 to 51), and 56 (15 to 211). At the same time, there was little evidence that exaggeration in press releases increased the uptake of news. . . . Exaggeration in news is strongly associated with exaggeration in press releases. Improving the accuracy of academic press releases could represent a key opportunity for reducing misleading health related news. (

Researchers should pay careful attention to both inaccuracies and omissions in popular new reporting of their research. At the very least, a letter to the editor or a comment on the news web site is in order.

Simple boilerplate language follows:

I am writing in response to your article [title of news article here] by [journalist’s name here] that you published on [date of the news article here]. While I am grateful that you have brought my [and my colleagues’] research to a wider audience, I need to correct some inaccuracies [and omissions].

First, . . .

Second, . . .

Finally, . . .

Our research has promise but that potential is not yet fulfilled.

By responding to news reports of your research, you refine the public discussion and inform non-expert readers and journalists, “a key opportunity for reducing misleading health related news.”


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 211 other followers