We at F1000Research have a strong belief in transparency: transparency in peer review; transparency in research that is published, through the release and publication of all the underlying data; and transparency in publication, through acceptance of both positive and the ’unexciting’ negative and null findings to reduce the current positive publication bias. Most scientists we…
One of the main aims of F1000Researchis to have the raw data behind every research and data article we publish on display (we are the only life sciences journal that does this systematically). But publishing data is just the first step; we also want this data to be easy to discover and easy to use.…
Last month we published an article by Mark Peterson of Indiana University, about the genetics of song birds. Mark’s work looked for sequence variants of two genes (known to affect migration) between migratory and non-migratory birds, but did not find a correlation in the species he studied. His paper received positive feedback from referees, and…
[NB: this campaign has been extended until the end of September. Read more.] Negative, and proud of it! It can be very difficult to get papers presenting negative or null results published. Many important results from scientific experiments are never published in the traditional peer reviewed literature, but negative and null results present a particular…
(This is the final installment of a series of posts featuring speakers from “Challenging the Science Publishing Status Quo”, an evening of talks about peer review, data sharing, and open access. Previously: Lawrence Kane on rapid publication, Keith Flaherty on publishing negative results , Steven Hyman on sharing datasets, Sue Griffin on transparent peer review,…
(This is part 4 of a series of posts featuring speakers from “Challenging the Science Publishing Status Quo”, an evening of talks about peer review, data sharing, and open access. Previously: Lawrence Kane on rapid publication, Keith Flaherty on publishing negative results , Steven Hyman on sharing datasets, Sue Griffin on transparent peer review) Gary…
(This is part 4 of a series of posts featuring speakers from “Challenging the Science Publishing Status Quo”, an evening of talks about peer review, data sharing, and open access. Previously: Lawrence Kane on rapid publication, Keith Flaherty on publishing negative results , Steven Hyman on sharing datasets ) Sue Griffin is is Dillard Professor…
(This is part 3 of a series of posts featuring speakers from “Challenging the Science Publishing Status Quo”, an evening of talks about peer review, data sharing, and open access. Previously: Lawrence Kane on rapid publication, Keith Flaherty on publishing negative results.) Steven Hyman is Distinguished Service Professor of Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology and…
(This is part 2 of a series of posts featuring speakers from “Challenging the Science Publishing Status Quo”, an evening of talks about peer review, data sharing, and open access. Previously: Lawrence Kane on rapid publication.) Keith Flaherty is Director of Developmental Therapeutics at the Massachusetts Cancer Center. In his talk he addressed the benefits…
We recently hosted “Challenging the Science Publishing Status Quo”, an evening of talks and discussion with several distinguished speakers. Each guest speaker focused on one particular aspect of publishing and peer review. We’ve recorded all the talks, and will be posting them one by one, starting today, and continuing throughout next week. The guest speaker…
