segunda-feira, 14 de dezembro de 2015

My experience with F1000Research posters and slides

A few days ago I talked about my experience of publishing preprints with PeerJ and why I believe in this type of scientific dissemination. Now, I will present another new way to present the scientific results: the publication of posters and slides in the F1000Research. This service is an open access platform for the publication of results from scientists in the field of biological and health sciences . Its main uniqueness is the supposed non-interference of an editorial body in the publications. The F1000Research staff states that it is not a journal, or a newspaper. They use the term "publishing platform" to convey this concept, but still leave it vague enough to allow for varying interpretations. The publications go through a brief editorial evaluation and are published quickly (sometimes in a few hours!) after submission. The initial evaluation is mandatory and serves to filter cases of blatant deviation from editorial rules. There is no pre-publication peer review. Despite this, the F1000Research insists that its publications "are not preprints". In fact, once you publish your material there, you can no longer edit it, unlike PeerJ Preprints, where this functionality still persists.

In the case of scientific articles, a "post-publication" peer review may occur and is identified. The stories of F1000Research experiences are varied, ranging from those who worship it, to those who will never submit again. Librarian Jeffrey Beall has cited F1000Research in his Scholarly Open Access blog for accepting a paper possibly in the frontier between science and fraud ("fringe paper"). Such an occurrence should not, in fact, denigrate that publishing platform, since its policy is to publish first and then revise. Checking the publication, we can see that it received 1 approval and 2 rejections, leading to conclude that Beall's assessment may be correct: it can be a "fringe paper." Due to the nature of the F1000Research editorial process, however, this does not mean that this platform has lower quality. Articles of questionable quality assessed a posteriori have also been published in many traditional journals and the refutation of their claims is part of the development of science as a whole.

I especially like the proposal to publish all the posters presented at congresses in a repository. At the moment, this F1000Research service is free and without limits. Posters may be published in any language, but metadata should be described in English. After submission, an evaluation is performed for editorial homogeneity, markers are assigned and the poster is published (publicly available, with DOI and can be cited). This type of proposal has the advantage of promoting the dissemination of data that is still preliminary, but which may be useful. In addition, it can help reduce publication bias by encouraging the publication of negative data that, after presentation at events, is rarely published in conventional journals. Posters published on F1000Research are not indexed on popular platforms such as Google Scholar.

The submission process was very simple and fast. There is the option to add a poster summary, plus the title and keywords. It also tells you where and when the work was presented. The time between the submission and its approval varied, in my case, from 6 to 60 hours, or close to that. None of my submissions were rejected, but some English summaries (metadata) were truncated, usually leaving the introduction and conclusion and deleting the rest. Perhaps it was due to problems in the English language, but I believe that the staff of F1000Research has no homogeneity of judgment at this point, because all the abstracts were written in the same style and even with some similar texts, due to the proximity between the themes addressed. Even so, while some were published without any change, others were truncated in most of the text. Another thing I noticed was a variation on the assignment of markers, prerogative of the staff of F1000Research (in PeerJ, for example, the author chooses them). The choice of markers seemed, at times, random. In some of my posters, the neuro-oncology marker was correctly assigned. In five of them, an excessive number for those who propose a process with few errors, the marker chosen was "tumors of head and neck." This forced me to contact support twice, and in the second time there was a delay in response. Although it was a setback, it did not greatly diminish my impression on the quality of F1000Research.

All counted, I rate my experience with posting posters (and slides) in F1000Research on the positive side. This proposal is interesting and there are several alternative services coming up, like Figshare. I want to evaluate other repositories for posters, slides and other academic materials otherwise not published in conventional venues.




f1000

My submissions published in F1000Research.

Link for the last poster I published in this platform: Descriptive longitudinal study of pediatric patients with primary brain tumors: establishment... - F1000Research

Clique aqui!

2015 A.C. Camargo academic journals acesso aberto adverse drug reactions alergia alquilantes alto custo ambiente analgésicos anomalias vasculares anti-eméticos anti-helmínticos anti-histamínico antianêmicos antiangiogênico anticâncer anticoagulantes antifúngicos antiprotozoários antivirais artemisinina arXiv asma asthma atopia atualização aula aulas auto-arquivamento avastin avermectina bevacizumab biologicals bioRxiv Blogger brain tumor cancer cancerologia pediátrica Carlos Chagas carne vermelha cauterização Ceará child chronic fatigue syndrome ciência ciência brasileira ciências biológicas e da saúde cientistas influentes cirurgia CLI conselho internacional crime virtual CT scans Curtis Harris darbopoietina dermatite diabetes dieta disautonomia dislipidemias doença renal doenças cardíacas doenças parasitárias dor DPOC eczema editoras predatórias efeitos adversos eficácia ensino e pesquisa eritropoietina erlotinib ESA escleroterapia estatinas esteróides estilo de vida exercícios F1000Research farmacogenética farmacologia fatores de crescimento fibromialgia Figshare Fisiologia e Medicina fitness flu FMJ fosfoetanolamina fraude acadêmica fraude eletrônica genetics glioblastoma gliomas Google Books gordos green way Harald zur Hausen hemangiomas hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis horário imagem immunology imunossupressores imunoterapia infecção urinária inibidores de ECA inibidores tirosina-quinase iniciação científica insulina irracionalismo ivermectina Jeffrey Beall journal hijack Lectures lepra leucemia leukemia linfangiomas Mac OS X macrophage activation syndrome magrinhas mal-formações March for Science Marcha pela Ciência medicina personalizada meta-análise Milton Santos modelos monoclonais monoclonal antibody mortalidade morte mudança Mulliken neuro-oncologia neuroblastoma neurology ngram viewer Nobel Nobel em Medicina ou Fisiologia novas drogas novos tratamentos obesidade ômega 3 open access osteoporose Osvaldo Cruz pediatria pediatric cancer pediatric tumors pediatrics peer review PeerJ personalized medicine PET/CT pharmacogenetics pharmacological treatment pharmacology plágio política de C&T posters postprints predatory publishers Preprints pressão arterial prevenção progressista projeto de pesquisa propranolol próstata publicação publicação científica publicações publication pubmed Python quimioterapia radiation radioterapia rapamycin recidiva regressão espontânea resposta resultados retrospectiva revisão por pares risco Satoshi Ömura Scholarly Open Access science ScienceNOW seguimento selênio self-archiving sequestro de periódico científico serotonina SIDA sildenafil slides sobrevida sulfa suplementos survival tacerva targeted therapy temozolamida temozolomide terapia alternativa tireóide tratamento tuberculose tumores cerebrais tumores pediátricos vaccine vacina via dourada via verde vitamina E vitaminas William C. Campbell Youyou Tu

Postagens populares