The Chronic Problem of Predatory Journals

I’ve blogged about the topic of predatory journals before, and not much has changed. But as a grant writer/editor/applicant, the more you know the better you can navigate the issue when presenting your biosketch and selecting appropriate citations. At the end of July, AMWA-EMWA-ISMPP* released a joint position statement on predatory publishing and its “threat both to researchers publishing the results of their work and to the peer-reviewed medical literature itself.” You can read the full statement in Current Medical Research and Opinion here.
*AMWA – American Medical Writers Association
EMWA – European Medical Writers Association
ISMPP – International Society for Medical Publication Professionals

When Is New Research the Bleeding Edge for Proposal Writers?

When choosing the primary sources for a research proposal, most of us experienced types dutifully instruct new researchers and proposal writers that sources older than five years are too old, unless you’re citing a seminal work. And there it usually ends–if primary research is less than five years old at the time of review, have at it. But recently a researcher pointed out the new reality of technology, the down side of our real-time existence–research that is too new. That’s right, research on which the digital ink has yet to dry can be too bleeding edge to reliably support your hypothesis in the eyes of reviewers. There are two primary reasons this is a new, but important, reality in the world of research proposals. Continue reading “When Is New Research the Bleeding Edge for Proposal Writers?”