From Fish To Philosopher

This episode indicates that journal articles may vary from a high level of acknowledged quality to another class of manuscripts of lesser quality because they contain questionable data to a third class of papers lacking any standard whatsoever of acceptable quality.

This episode pertains to the removal of NIH peer reviewers who fail to disclose foreign ties or who breach confidentiality, gender inequality in scientific careers, open-access Plan S, and predatory biomedical journals.

This episode is about gender differences in positive framing of research findings in articles, addressing a reproducibility crisis due to the inability to replicate research findings, and measuring the commitment of journals to research transparency. 

This episode discusses the possibility that the name of the Journal of Allied Health could have a new name since the Association that the journal belongs to modified its name, how metaphors enrich communication, and terminological inexactitudes in health vocabulary.

This episode sheds light on the process of selecting reviewers for a given manuscript from the standpoint of the time involved before assessments arrive and reviewer ethics stemming from when an individual reviewer fails to report that the review was conducted by someone else.

This episode involves the cascade of messages flowing among the editor of the Journal of Allied Health, reviewers, authors, and the publisher as a submitted article begins a journey from time of being submitted to a final decision regarding whether to accept for publication.

This episode provides a description of Plan S, a radical open-access initiative that could have a dramatic impact on science publishing, and reasons why it is necessary for some published articles to be retracted.

This episode is about reviewers who are late in submitting their assessments of articles, the dilemma associated with conflicting reviews regarding whether an article should be accepted for publication, and gender bias issues that affect women authors negatively.

This episode describes publication experiments that involve accepting papers for publication prior to authors knowing what their results will be in an approach known as “registered reports” and decisions involved in determining who lead authors should be.

This episode provides an example of proposed legislation to influence peer review of research grant applications for federal money, non-Congressional politics and peer review, and how some articles can be published earlier in the Journal of Allied Health’s electronic version.