Title |
Use and mis-use of supplementary material in science publications
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Bioinformatics, November 2015
|
DOI | 10.1186/s12859-015-0668-z |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Mihai Pop, Steven L. Salzberg |
Abstract |
Supplementary material is a ubiquitous feature of scientific articles, particularly in journals that limit the length of the articles. While the judicious use of supplementary material can improve the readability of scientific articles, its excessive use threatens the scientific review process and by extension the integrity of the scientific literature. In many cases supplementary material today is so extensive that it is reviewed superficially or not at all. Furthermore, citations buried within supplementary files rob other scientists of recognition of their contribution to the scientific record. These issues are exacerbated by the lack of guidance on the use of supplementary information from the journals to authors and reviewers. We propose that the removal of artificial length restrictions plus the use of interactive features made possible by modern electronic media can help to alleviate these problems. Many journals, in fact, have already removed article length limitations (as is the case for BMC Bioinformatics and other BioMed Central journals). We hope that the issues raised in our article will encourage publishers and scientists to work together towards a better use of supplementary information in scientific publishing. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 25 | 19% |
United Kingdom | 13 | 10% |
Australia | 9 | 7% |
Germany | 6 | 5% |
Switzerland | 5 | 4% |
France | 5 | 4% |
Canada | 5 | 4% |
Mexico | 4 | 3% |
Denmark | 3 | 2% |
Other | 24 | 18% |
Unknown | 32 | 24% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Scientists | 73 | 56% |
Members of the public | 55 | 42% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 2% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 3 | 2% |
Portugal | 2 | 2% |
United States | 2 | 2% |
Germany | 1 | <1% |
Czechia | 1 | <1% |
Norway | 1 | <1% |
Singapore | 1 | <1% |
Brazil | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 120 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 34 | 26% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 29 | 22% |
Student > Master | 13 | 10% |
Student > Bachelor | 10 | 8% |
Other | 8 | 6% |
Other | 17 | 13% |
Unknown | 21 | 16% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 35 | 27% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 12 | 9% |
Computer Science | 9 | 7% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 5% |
Chemistry | 6 | 5% |
Other | 34 | 26% |
Unknown | 30 | 23% |