Creating effective titles for your scientific publications.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Bowman D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6119233 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Creating effective titles for your scientific publications.
Bowman Deborah D Kinnan Stephanie S
VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 20180803 9
Similar Datasets
Project description:Scientists routinely use images to display data. Readers often examine figures first; therefore, it is important that figures are accessible to a broad audience. Many resources discuss fraudulent image manipulation and technical specifications for image acquisition; however, data on the legibility and interpretability of images are scarce. We systematically examined these factors in non-blot images published in the top 15 journals in 3 fields; plant sciences, cell biology, and physiology (n = 580 papers). Common problems included missing scale bars, misplaced or poorly marked insets, images or labels that were not accessible to colorblind readers, and insufficient explanations of colors, labels, annotations, or the species and tissue or object depicted in the image. Papers that met all good practice criteria examined for all image-based figures were uncommon (physiology 16%, cell biology 12%, plant sciences 2%). We present detailed descriptions and visual examples to help scientists avoid common pitfalls when publishing images. Our recommendations address image magnification, scale information, insets, annotation, and color and may encourage discussion about quality standards for bioimage publishing.
| S-EPMC8041175 | biostudies-literature
Project description:An analysis of more than 1000 research articles in biology reveals that the name of the species being studied is not mentioned in the title or abstract of many articles. Consequently, such data are not easily accessible in the PubMed database. These omissions can mislead readers about the true nature of developmental processes and delay the acceptance of valid species differences. To improve the accuracy of the scientific record, I suggest that journals should require that authors include the name of the species being studied in the title or abstract of submitted papers.
| S-EPMC4275570 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We propose a new method to assess the merit of any set of scientific papers in a given field based on the citations they receive. Given a field and a citation impact indicator, such as the mean citation or the [Formula: see text]-index, the merit of a given set of [Formula: see text] articles is identified with the probability that a randomly drawn set of [Formula: see text] articles from a given pool of articles in that field has a lower citation impact according to the indicator in question. The method allows for comparisons between sets of articles of different sizes and fields. Using a dataset acquired from Thomson Scientific that contains the articles published in the periodical literature in the period 1998-2007, we show that the novel approach yields rankings of research units different from those obtained by a direct application of the mean citation or the [Formula: see text]-index.
| S-EPMC3496740 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PNAS is one of world's most cited multidisciplinary scientific journals. The PNAS official classification structure of subjects is reflected in topic labels submitted by the authors of articles, largely related to traditionally established disciplines. These include broad field classifications into physical sciences, biological sciences, social sciences, and further subtopic classifications within the fields. Focusing on biological sciences, we explore an internal soft-classification structure of articles based only on semantic decompositions of abstracts and bibliographies and compare it with the formal discipline classifications. Our model assumes that there is a fixed number of internal categories, each characterized by multinomial distributions over words (in abstracts) and references (in bibliographies). Soft classification for each article is based on proportions of the article's content coming from each category. We discuss the appropriateness of the model for the PNAS database as well as other features of the data relevant to soft classification.
| S-EPMC387299 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Publications in scientific journals contain a considerable fraction of our scientific knowledge. Analyzing data from publication databases helps us understand how this knowledge is obtained and how it changes over time. In this study, we present a mathematical model for the temporal dynamics of data on the scientific content of publications. Our data set consists of references to thousands of genes in the >15 million publications listed in PubMed. We show that the observed dynamics may result from a simple process: Researchers predominantly publish on genes that already appear in many publications. This might be a rewarding strategy for researchers, because there is a positive correlation between the frequency of a gene in scientific publications and the journal impact of the publications. By comparing the empirical data with model predictions, we are able to detect unusual publication patterns that often correspond to major achievements in the field. We identify interactions between yeast genes from PubMed and show that the frequency differences of genes in publications lead to a biased picture of the resulting interaction network.
| S-EPMC1924584 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Ranking the significance of scientific publications is a long-standing challenge. The network-based analysis is a natural and common approach for evaluating the scientific credit of papers. Although the number of citations has been widely used as a metric to rank papers, recently some iterative processes such as the well-known PageRank algorithm have been applied to the citation networks to address this problem. In this paper, we introduce nonlinearity to the PageRank algorithm when aggregating resources from different nodes to further enhance the effect of important papers. The validation of our method is performed on the data of American Physical Society (APS) journals. The results indicate that the nonlinearity improves the performance of the PageRank algorithm in terms of ranking effectiveness, as well as robustness against malicious manipulations. Although the nonlinearity analysis is based on the PageRank algorithm, it can be easily extended to other iterative ranking algorithms and similar improvements are expected.
| S-EPMC4200399 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The rapid development of modern science nowadays makes it rather challenging to pick out valuable ideas from massive scientific literature. Existing widely-adopted citation-based metrics are not adequate for measuring how well the idea presented by a single publication is developed and whether it is worth following. Here, inspired by traditional X-ray imaging, which returns internal structure imaging of real objects along with corresponding structure analysis, we propose Scientific X-ray, a framework that quantifies the development degree and development potential for any scientific idea through an assembly of ‘X-ray’ scanning, visualization and parsing operated on the citation network associated with a target publication. We pick all 71,431 scientific articles of citation counts over 1,000 as high-impact target publications among totally 204,664,199 publications that cover 16 disciplines spanning from 1800 to 2021. Our proposed Scientific X-ray reproduces how an idea evolves from the very original target publication all the way to the up to date status via an extracted ‘idea tree’ that attempts to preserve the most representative idea flow structure underneath each citation network. Interestingly, we observe that while the citation counts of publications may increase unlimitedly, the maximum valid idea inheritance of those target publications, i.e., the valid depth of the idea tree, cannot exceed a limit of six hops, and the idea evolution structure of any arbitrary publication unexceptionally falls into six fixed patterns. Combined with a development potential index that we further design based on the extracted idea tree, Scientific X-ray can vividly tell how further a given idea presented by a given publication can still go from any well-established starting point. Scientific X-ray successfully identifies 40 out of 49 topics of Nobel prize as high-potential topics by their prize-winning papers in an average of nine years before the prizes are released. Various trials on articles of diverse topics also confirm the power of Scientific X-ray in digging out influential/promising ideas. Scientific X-ray is user-friendly to researchers with any level of expertise, thus providing important basis for grasping research trends, helping scientific policy-making and even promoting social development.
| S-EPMC9518912 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In addition to its primary regulatory role, the Office of Hematology and Oncology Products at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is engaged in many forms of scientific authorship. During the period of 2010 to 2018, FDA oncology staff contributed to 356 publications in the scientific literature. Here, we collaborated with analysts in the Office of Program Planning, Analysis, and Evaluation at the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health (NIH), to present a series of analyses aimed at quantifying the characteristics and potential impact of these contributions, as well as characterizing the areas of work addressed. We found that FDA oncology papers are enriched for high-impact publications and have about two times the number of citations as an average NIH-funded paper. Further impact of the publications was measured based on the presence of 65 publications that were cited by guidelines and 12 publications cited by publicly listed clinical trials. The results seen here are promising in determining the impact of FDA oncology publication work but prompt further investigation into longer-term impacts, such as the influence of this work on other regulatory activities at FDA. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This article describes the first comprehensive study of scientific publications produced by U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oncology staff. The analysis illustrates that staff are highly engaged in publishing in the scientific literature in addition to completing regulatory review work. Publications are generally in clinical medicine, consistent with the large number of medical oncologists working at the Office of Hematology and Oncology Products (OHOP). OHOP publications generally focus either on communicating important regulatory work (approval summaries) or highlighting regulatory science issues to encourage dialogue with the scientific community (commentaries, reviews, and expert working papers). The analysis also suggests that several FDA oncology publications may influence clinical guidelines, but further work is needed to evaluate impact.
| S-EPMC7066718 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012 revealed that only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error. In contrast, 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%). Incomplete, uninformative or misleading retraction announcements have led to a previous underestimation of the role of fraud in the ongoing retraction epidemic. The percentage of scientific articles retracted because of fraud has increased ∼10-fold since 1975. Retractions exhibit distinctive temporal and geographic patterns that may reveal underlying causes.
| S-EPMC3479492 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Scientific publications are the building blocks of discovery and collaboration, but their impact is limited by the style in which they are traditionally written. Recently, many authors have called for a switch to an engaging, accessible writing style. Here, we experimentally test how readers respond to such a style. We hypothesized that scientific abstracts written in a more accessible style would improve readers' reported readability and confidence as well as their understanding, assessed using multiple-choice questions on the content. We created a series of scientific abstracts, corresponding to real publications on three scientific topics at four levels of difficulty-varying from the difficult, traditional style to an engaging, accessible style. We gave these abstracts to a team of readers consisting of 170 third-year undergraduate students. Then, we posed questions to measure the readers' readability, confidence, and understanding with the content. The scientific abstracts written in a more accessible style resulted in higher readability, understanding, and confidence. These findings demonstrate that rethinking the way we communicate our science may empower a more collaborative and diverse industry.
| S-EPMC8430246 | biostudies-literature