INTRODUCTION The past decade has seen a major shift in the journal collections of academic health sciences libraries. Libraries gained access to vast numbers of journals as never before possible when they moved into licensing large electronic journal packages instead of the traditional title-by-title print journal selections. These changes have been a boon to researchers, […]
INTRODUCTION The open access model, defined here as free access to scholarly publishing, has emerged alongside the traditional, subscription-based model for publishing medical journals [1-3]. The open access model was developed largely in response to rapidly rising subscription prices [4, 5], which raised concerns about access to scientific research, especially that funded by public entities […]
INTRODUCTION Core lists are often a key resource in library collection development and evaluation. For initial collection building, a core list can provide needed direction in identifying materials for first purchase. In the case of an existing collection, a core list can serve as a benchmark for evaluating a collection or as a guide during […]
In 2000, the National Center for Biotechnology Information at the National Library of Medicine (NLM) created PubMed Central (PMC) to serve as a free digital archive for biomedical and life sciences journal literature . In 2005, researchers who received National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding were given the option to voluntarily submit their manuscripts to […]
INTRODUCTION Article citations serve many purposes. Writers use references to credit other authors’ ideas. Citation analysis is used to study trends in a particular field. Researchers use references to find original or additional sources of information.
Byline: Sheibaninia A, Valaiee N, Bita Tavakoli, Azizi F, Mohamadsadeghi Sh and Nourbakhsh M – Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION Retraction of journal papers containing falsified data plays a central role in “correcting” the scientific record. Of 395 articles retracted between 1982 and 2002, Nath et al. classified 62% as retracted as a result of mistake, 27% because of deliberate falsification or fabrication of data, and 11% without a clear reason for retraction . […]