Monday, December 30, 2013

PLoS Medicine > Why Most Published Research Findings Are False


Summary

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

Source and Full Text Available At:

[http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124]

Thursday, December 12, 2013

Canadian Association of Research Libraries Publishes Altmetrics in Context

OTTAWA, December 9, 2013 - The Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL) is pleased to announce the publication of Altmetrics in Context. As scholarly communication takes on new forms and moves increasingly to digital and open access venues, the value of new types of metrics is increasingly important for the research community. It is causing discussion and, in some camps, heated debate.

Altmetrics report the impact of a wide range of research outputs, including data sets, articles and code. This document, available on the CARL Website, provides a quick introduction to this new field of research impact assessment and encourages researchers to use altmetrics in their work.

Source and Full Text Available At 

[http://us6.campaign-archive1.com/?u=9000187600&id=22afbbc570]

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

A/V Now Available > FREE Webinar > Measuring Impact: Redefining Scholarly Value Through New Data > December 18 2013 > 3:00 PM - 4:00 PM ET

LJ Data Driven Webcasts 2013 Header Series 550px1 Measuring Impact: Redefining Scholarly Value Through New Data (DDAL Pt. 3)
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
3:00-4:00 PM ET / 12:00-1:00 PM PT

SPONSORED BY: ProQuest, Library Journal and ER&L

Scholars are looking beyond traditional metrics to show the impact their work can have in the online world, while publishers are looking to show more value for their content. This has led to looking at other sources of data to determine other ways to consider value. This webcast will highlight the work scholars and organizations are doing around alternative metrics and article-level use to expand the definition of the impact of scholarly exchange.

Speakers

Gregg Gordon - President and CEO, Social Science Research Network (SSRN)
Jason Priem - Co-founder, ImpactStory
Jennifer Lin - Senior Product Manager, Public Library of Science

Moderator
Bonnie Tijerina - Head of E-Resources and Serials, Harvard Library 

Source and A/V Available At: