In the Press

Worth reading - Science and otherwise

500 Queer Scientists Visibility CampaignA visibility campaign to highlight the accomplishments and lives of LGBTQAI+ people working in science, technology, engineering, and math.

We need to talk about editorsEditoris spivia The role of journal editor is powerful: you decide what is accepted or rejected for publication. Given that publications cou...

Opinion / Perspective

La recherche face au défi d’homo bureaucraticus

by André Sentenac

Comptes Rendus. Biologies, Tome 346 (2023), pp. 25-27

« Il n’y a point de problème qu’une embauche de bureaucrates supplémentaires ne puisse pas résoudre. » (prov. soviet.)

https://doi.org/10.5802/crbiol.108

Women in research - Elsevier’s perspectiveElsevier strives to erode barriers to women taking on editorial roles, but we must continue to identify new challenges and collaborate on solutions

Stop misusing data when hiring academicsSocial-media impact, university rankings and online-aggregator metrics are broken — better ways to assess researchers are needed.

Vous ne voyez rien apparaître ci-dessus ? Nouvelle authentification

Abolish the R&R

by Christine L. Williams (Department of Sociology, University of Texas at Austin)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1971-8853/14685

Extensive revising is required by most sociology journals. It is normative for authors to "revise and resubmit" their manuscripts several times before they are accepted for publication, a process that is time consuming, demoralizing, and stifling of creativity. This essay discusses the potential benefits and drawbacks of abolishing the R&R as an option for journal editors.

Why Won't Academia Let Go of 'Publish or Perish'?Opinion | From graduate students to full professors, scientists seem to be too entrenched in the current system to change it.

How citation cartels give ‘strategic scholars’ an advantage: A simple modelRichard Phelps Sincere scholars work to expand society’s knowledge and understanding. They cite all the relevant research, even that produced by those they disagree with or personally dislike. They…

A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review - Research Integrity and Peer ReviewBackground The amount and value of researchers’ peer review work is critical for academia and journal publishing. However, this labor is under-recognized, its magnitude is unknown, and alternative ways of organizing peer review labor are rarely considered. Methods Using publicly available data, we provide an estimate of researchers’ time and the salary-based contribution to the journal peer review system. Results We found that the total time reviewers globally worked on peer reviews was over 100 million hours in 2020, equivalent to over 15 thousand years. The estimated monetary value of the time US-based reviewers spent on reviews was over 1.5 billion USD in 2020. For China-based reviewers, the estimate is over 600 million USD, and for UK-based, close to 400 million USD. Conclusions By design, our results are very likely to be under-estimates as they reflect only a portion of the total number of journals worldwide. The numbers highlight the enormous amount of work and time that researchers provide to the publication system, and the importance of considering alternative ways of structuring, and paying for, peer review. We foster this process by discussing some alternative models that aim to boost the benefits of peer review, thus improving its cost-benefit ratio.

The big idea: should we get rid of the scientific paper?As a format it’s slow, encourages hype, and is difficult to correct. A radical overhaul of publishing could make science better

The case for (more) diversity in peer reviewExploring the history, importance and benefits of being inclusive

Journal citation reports and the definition of a predatory journal: The case of the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)Abstract. The extent to which predatory journals can harm scientific practice increases as the numbers of such journals expand, in so far as they undermine scie

The Curse of More, or, Does Anybody Have Any Time Left to Do Research? - The Scholarly KitchenWhen do new approaches to research communication become an end unto themselves? How much more work can we pile on researchers? Is more information always better than less?

Preprints Are Not Going to Replace Journals - The Scholarly KitchenAt a recent meeting, a debate was held on the motion: Preprints are going to replace journals. I was asked to oppose the motion and this post is based on my arguments.

Revisiting: How to Be A Good Peer Reviewer - The Scholarly KitchenRevisiting Jasmine Wallace's 2019 primer on best practices for peer reviewers.

The authorship rows that sour scientific collaborationsTeam science suffers when junior researchers see their career-defining contributions to a paper downplayed. Here’s how to tackle disputes.

Vous ne voyez rien apparaître ci-dessus ? Nouvelle authentification

How a Sharp-Eyed Scientist Became Biology’s Image DetectiveUsing just her eyes and memory, Elisabeth Bik has single-handedly identified thousands of studies containing potentially doctored scientific images.

Scientific-journal publishers announce trans-inclusive name-change policies – Physics WorldThe introduction of the policies has been broadly welcomed in the community, but some say there is still some way to go

Les prétoires ne sont pas des laboratoiresLe CNRS a pris connaissance avec consternation dans la presse de la plainte qu’aurait déposée l’IHU de Marseille à l’encontre d’Elisabeth Bik, et de Boris Barbour, chercheur au CNRS, en tant que responsable du site PubPeer.

Scientific Publishing Is a JokeAn "XKCD" comic—and its many remixes—perfectly captures the absurdity of academic research.

The Cell Press Inclusion and Diversity Statement — An Interview with Deborah Sweet - The Scholarly KitchenDeborah Sweet of Cell Press discusses their recently introduced Inclusion and Diversity Statement in this interview with Alice Meadows

What’s Next for Open Science - Making the Case for Open Methods - The Scholarly KitchenTransparency around research methodologies is essential for driving public trust and accurate, reproducible research results.

Peer reviewers unmasked: largest global survey reveals trendsScientists in emerging economies respond fastest to peer review invitations, but are invited least.

Not seeing anything above? Reauthenticate

Meta-Research: A retrospective analysis of the peer review of more than 75,000 Marie Curie proposals between 2007 and 2018A study of more than 75,000 grant proposals to the European Union indicates that the outcomes of the peer review process remain stable in response to changes in the way that peer review is organized.

Parliament votes through €95.5B Horizon Europe budgetThe European Parliament agreed on the EU’s 2021 - 2027 budget, including €95.5 billion for the Horizon Europe research and innovation programme, which now has the money to start in 2021, with the first call for grant applications expected by next April. The budget was approved with 548 votes in favour, 81 against and 66 abstentions.

Farewell to Europe’s Horizon 2020Although imperfect, the world’s biggest funding scheme got a lot right.

Not seeing anything above? Reauthenticate

Halte à la fraude scientifiqueNos concitoyens ont assisté durant la pandémie à une dispersion des moyens scientifiques à l’échelle mondiale, européenne, et même nationale, nourrie par une impréparation et des égoïsmes. Il est urgent de provoquer une transformation salutaire.

Articles Are the Fundamental Unit of Data Sharing - The Scholarly KitchenThe FAIR principles answer the 'How' question for sharing research data, but we also need consensus on the 'What' question.

Signs of ‘citation hacking’ flagged in scientific papersAn algorithm developed to spot abnormal patterns of citations aims to find scientists who have manipulated reference lists.

Not seeing anything above? Reauthenticate

My opinion: Coercive citation [reviewers asking authors to add unnecessary references] is one of the major flaws of the peer-review process. It hinders a fair, unbiased and transparent editorial decision. One solution would be to add a label "Reference added post-peer review". Another solution would be to refrain from evaluating science and researchers according to their citation records [Sign DORA]

Reference: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.12.248369v1