Claim OwnershipFrom Fish To Philosopher
Subscribed: 0Played: 5
Subscribe
Description
“From Fish To Philosopher” is the title of a book published in 1953 by Homer Smith that relates the story of vertebrate kidney evolution viewed through the function of that organ at different phylogenetic levels. Dr. Thomas Elwood, the current Editor of the Journal of Allied Health, read the book in 1962. Borrowing the same title, he uses it to apply a similar embryological perspective as a conceptual framework to present 40 selected editorials published by him between the Winter 2008 and the Fall 2020 issues of the Journal. These items reveal how this publication continues to evolve from one quarterly issue to the next in various ways during that period.
The intended audience is of a two-fold nature: Prospective Authors who want to learn about the inner workings of this Journal and Readers with a broad interest in the rapidly evolving world of professional periodicals.
The intended audience is of a two-fold nature: Prospective Authors who want to learn about the inner workings of this Journal and Readers with a broad interest in the rapidly evolving world of professional periodicals.
40 Episodes
Reverse
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.
This episode discusses the retraction of papers, readability of published articles, reporting of negative findings, participation of female authors in the production of manuscripts and the degree to which they collaborate internationally on research papers.
This episode distinguishes among altmetrics, which measures an article’s real-time reach and influence; biased metrics, which relate to favoring authors from elite institutions; and contentious metrics, which aim to measure impact differently from Impact Factors.
This episode acknowledges that some academic libraries are finding it increasingly difficult to meet the costs of current journal subscriptions while also recognizing that many papers that are published defy efforts to replicate their findings because of implausible, unreliable data.
This episode relates how a growth in the number of scientists and publications has resulted in millions of articles being published every year while large bodies of published research are unreliable and reporting biases exist across multiple fields of research and a variety of forms.
This episode refers to a survey conducted as a way of identifying topics of interest to Journal of Allied Health readers and factors that affect the length of time articles are in the journal’s system before a final decision is made regarding publication acceptance or rejection.
This episode lists some defects associated with the use of Impact Factors, the number of journals that solicit the submission of articles, and the predatory nature of some open access periodicals that employ questionable marketing and peer review practices.
This episode examines the role that paradigms play in possibly constricting the range of problems to be investigated, along with recognizing the importance of having articles submitted to the Journal of Allied Health that examine future allied health workforce needs.
This episode indicates how observational studies preclude the possibility of drawing conclusions between cause and effect, the ever-growing volume of articles published each year in journals, and the relevance of publication bias.
This episode provides data about acceptance rates and the number of days articles submitted to the journal are in the system, along with information about the professions represented in manuscripts and major topics addressed.
This episode discusses the adequacy of the peer review process and refers to examples identified during the Seventh International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication and also how peer review has been called into question regarding papers funded by the NIH.
Comments
Download from Google Play
Download from App Store
United States