Gaming the impact factor: where who cites what, whom and when

Bibliometric Study of Technology and Occupational Health in Healthcare Sector: A Worldwide Trend to the Future

Since the eighties, technological tools have modified how people interact in their environment. At the same time, occupational safety and health measures have been widely applied. The European Agency for Safety and Health at Work considers that information and communication technologies are the main methods to achieve the goals proposed to improve working life and the dissemination of good practices. The principal objective was to determine the trends of publications focused on these technologies and occupational safety in the healthcare sector during the last 30 years. A bibliometric study was carried out. The 1021 documents showed an increased trend per country, especially for the United States (p < 0.001) and year (p < 0.001). The citations per year showed significant differences between citations of articles published before 2007 (p < 0.001). The year was also linked to the increase or decrease of articles (72.2%) and reviews (14.9%) (p < 0.001). The analysis of journal co-citations also showed that the main journals (such as Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology) were linked to other important journals and had a major part in the clusters formed. All these findings were discussed in the manuscript and conclusions were drawn.

Making Research Evaluation More Transparent: Aligning Research Philosophy, Institutional Values, and Reporting

There is a growing interest in changing the culture of psychology to improve the quality of our science. At the root of this interest is concern over the reproducibility of key findings. A variety of large-scale replication attempts have revealed that several previously published effects cannot be reproduced, whereas other analyses indicate that the published literature is rife with underpowered studies and publication bias. These revelations suggest that it is time to change how psychological science is carried out and increase the transparency of reporting. We argue that change will be slow until institutions adopt new procedures for evaluating scholarly activity. We consider three actions that individuals and departments can take to facilitate change throughout psychological science: the development of individualized research-philosophy statements, the creation of an annotated curriculum vitae to improve the transparency of scholarly reporting, and the use of a formal evaluative system that explicitly captures behaviors that support reproducibility. Our recommendations build on proposals for open science by enabling researchers to have a voice in articulating (and contextualizing) how they would like their work to be evaluated and by providing a mechanism for more detailed and transparent reporting of scholarly activities.