Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Editorial
. 2015 Aug 18;6(4):e01222-15.
doi: 10.1128/mBio.01222-15.

The Justification for the Academy Track in mBio

Arturo Casadevall  1 , Thomas Shenk  2
Affiliations
Editorial

The Justification for the Academy Track in mBio

Arturo Casadevall et al. mBio. .
No abstract available

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIG 1
FIG 1
Plot of total citations versus publication date for AAM track (blue) and regular (gray) contributions. After controlling for the date of publication, there was no citation performance difference for papers in the two tracks (P = 0.78). Older publications receive more citations because they have been available longer than the more recent publications. (The plot was provided by Phil Davis Consulting. Reproduced with permission.)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

  • A comment on the AAM track.
    Cassone A. Cassone A. mBio. 2015 Oct 6;6(5):e01455-15. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01455-15. mBio. 2015. PMID: 26443459 Free PMC article. No abstract available.

References

    1. Aldhous P. 2014. Scientific publishing: the inside track. Nature 510:330–332. doi:10.1038/510330a. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ross JS, Gross CP, Desai MM, Hong Y, Grant AO, Daniels SR, Hachinski VC, Gibbons RJ, Gardner TJ, Krumholz HM. 2006. Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. JAMA 295:1675–1680. doi:10.1001/jama.295.14.1675. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gilbert JR, Williams ES, Lundberg GD. 1994. Is there gender bias in JAMA’s peer review process? JAMA 272:139–142. - PubMed
    1. Nylenna M, Riis P, Karlsson Y. 1994. Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. Effects of referee characteristics and publication language. JAMA 272:149–151. doi:10.1001/jama.272.2.149. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Smith R. 2006. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med 99:178–182. doi:10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources