scientific_reports

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
scientific_reports [2025/07/03 06:00] administradorscientific_reports [2025/07/03 06:01] (current) – [Summary Judgment] administrador
Line 58: Line 58:
 * **Useful for**: Pilot studies, technical validations, interdisciplinary collaborations, negative findings, or computational neuroscience. * **Useful for**: Pilot studies, technical validations, interdisciplinary collaborations, negative findings, or computational neuroscience.
  
-\===== Summary Judgment =====+\ 
 +===== Summary Judgment =====
  
 **Scientific Reports** occupies a useful niche in open-access scientific publishing, prioritizing technical rigor over novelty. While it lacks the prestige of flagship clinical journals, its broad reach and open-access model support transparency and early dissemination. However, its use in neurosurgery and clinical decision-making should be critical and selective. **Scientific Reports** occupies a useful niche in open-access scientific publishing, prioritizing technical rigor over novelty. While it lacks the prestige of flagship clinical journals, its broad reach and open-access model support transparency and early dissemination. However, its use in neurosurgery and clinical decision-making should be critical and selective.
  
 > “Scientifically sound but not necessarily practice-changing.” > “Scientifically sound but not necessarily practice-changing.”
- 
---- 
- 
-If you’d like this in **Dokuwiki format** or want a **comparison with journals like *BMJ Open* or *Frontiers in Neurology***, I can prepare that too. 
  
  • scientific_reports.txt
  • Last modified: 2025/07/03 06:01
  • by administrador