Anne Coghill: American Chemical Society Publications and CrossCheck #crossref15
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•6,683 views
#Crossref15 Tech Workshops + Member Meeting Boston, MA | Taj Boston November 17, 2015 Anne Coghill discussed CrossCheck Experiences
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Anne Coghill: American Chemical Society Publications and CrossCheck #crossref15
Similar to Anne Coghill: American Chemical Society Publications and CrossCheck #crossref15 (20)
More from Crossref
More from Crossref (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Anne Coghill: American Chemical Society Publications and CrossCheck #crossref15
- 1. Proprietary and Confidential American Chemical Society American Chemical Society Publications and CrossCheck Anne Coghill Manager, Peer Review Operations American Chemical Society CrossRef Annual Meeting November 17, 2015
- 2. Conversation Topics 1. About the American Chemical Society 2. Decisions made to implement CrossCheck 3. ACS’ experience with CrossCheck Proprietary and Confidential American Chemical Society 2
- 3. The American Chemical Society Proprietary and Confidential American Chemical Society 3 Advance science Advocate for chemistry Enable career development Educate the public Support future chemists Promote diversity
- 4. ACS Publications • Publish nearly 50 journals • 450 academic editors located globally • 120,000 submissions annually • 72,000 individual scientists contribute peer reviews • 40,000 manuscripts published • ACS Paragon Plus powered by ScholarOne’s Manuscript Central Proprietary and Confidential American Chemical Society 4
- 5. Decisions, Decisions, Decisions 1. Which environment to use to submit manuscripts to iThenticate? • ACS Paragon Plus 2. Where in the manuscript workflow should manuscripts be checked for plagiarism? Proprietary and Confidential American Chemical Society 5 • Screen all revised manuscripts on submission • Provide for ad hoc screening on original manuscripts Image: www.alabama.habitat.org
- 6. Decisions, Decisions, Decisions, continued 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 FrequencyofDecision Similarity Index Plagiarism Action Taken vs. Similarity Index No Action Action Proprietary and Confidential American Chemical Society 6 3. Should we use a similarity index threshold?
- 7. What’s Happening Now? • Editors seem satisfied • Challenges interacting with authors • Improvements requested – Better exclusion of references – Better exclusion of sections – Better ways to focus authors on specific passages Proprietary and Confidential American Chemical Society 7
- 8. Does CrossCheck Make a Difference? 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 PercentSimilarityIndexFrequency Similarity Index Percent Similarity Index Frequency, Oct 2013 vs. Oct 2015 % sim index freq Oct 2013 % sim index freq Oct 2015 Proprietary and Confidential American Chemical Society 8
- 9. Proprietary and Confidential American Chemical Society American Chemical Society Publications and CrossCheck Anne Coghill Manager, Peer Review Operations American Chemical Society CrossRef Annual Meeting November 17, 2015
Editor's Notes
- Hello and thanks for the opportunity to share with you ACS Publications’ experience with CrossCheck. If you were to visit our home page or view any ads for ACS Journals, our logo, ACS Publications: Most Trusted Most Cited Most Read is prominently displayed. We have a number of initiatives aimed at teaching our constituents how to publish in an ethical manner. But when it comes to our published material, we take a “Trust but Verify” approach. Our participation in CrossCheck is one of several initiatives at ACS to verify that authors behave in an ethical matter and ensure that we live up to the “most trusted” part of our logo.
- In my presentation, I’m going to chat who we are, three of the key decisions we made to implement CrossCheck, and then share some of our experience with CrossCheck.
- The American Chemical Society is the world’s largest scientific society with more than 158,000 chemists, chemical engineers, and practitioners of related fields as our members. So what do we do? We advance science through peer reviewed books and journals, conferences, grants, awards, and educational resources. We’re an advocate for chemistry, providing support for innovation, science education, and environmentally- and socially-responsible public policy. Enable career development through personal consulting, career fairs, jobs database, and professional development courses. Educate the public through public outreach programs, such as Chemists Celebrate Earth Day, National Chemistry Week, and Landmarks in Chemical History. Support future chemists with free educational resources, mentoring programs, student chapters, and high school chemistry clubs. Promote diversity through the empowerment of a diverse and inclusive membership and promoting innovation and advancement in the chemical sciences
- There were a lot of decisions to be made as we thought about implementing CrossCheck for our journals. One early decision which environment to work in. We had the ability to submit either through our Manuscript Central based manuscript tracking environment or directly via the iThenticate interface. Both options had some attractive features, but in the end, we decided that the convenience of submitting within the manuscript tracking environment outweighed other concerns. Since we started working with iThenticate and CrossCheck in early 2011, the question that I’ve heard the most debate about is where in the manuscript workflow should manuscripts be submitted to iThenticate? The conversation always reminds me of the children’s story, Goldilocks and the Three Bears. Some publishers scan at submission, some scan at revisions, but ultimately everyone finds what is “just right” for their publication program. We decided to pilot the iThenticate software with six of our journals to help decide where in the workflow to submit mss to iThenticate and get our editors thoughts on the software before we added it to all our journals. The pilot lasted about 9 months, and during that time period the journals collectively submitted about 3000 manuscripts to iThenticate. The participating journal editors liked the iThenticate software, but they strongly voiced judicious use of the tool given the amount of time needed to assess an originality report. In our publication program, we know that if an editor makes a revision decision, there is a high probability that the manuscript will be accepted for publication. It made sense to use to focus on our efforts on manuscripts that had a high probably of being accepted for publication. Consequently, all revised manuscripts are submitted to iThenticate. However, editors sometimes need to submit manuscripts to iThenticate in the original workflow as well so we provided them with the ability to do so on an adhoc basis.
- As we mulled over our editors’ advice to be judicious with with the iThenticate software, we also considered whether we should use a similarity index threshold. We wondered if we could help our editors decide where to focus their efforts with respect to analyzing iThenticate reports for potential plagiarism. As part of our pilot study, we asked the journals to tell us when the editors took some type of action wrt to plagiarism. We analyzed the similarity index of a manuscript and whether the editor took an action wrt to plagiarism. This chart is an early example of how we analyzed the data. Here, we’re plotting the similarity index of the manuscript versus whether the editor took an action on the manuscript wrt to plagiarism. Red bars represent manuscripts where editors took action and blue bars represent manuscripts where the editor didn’t take action. As you can see, at lower similarity indexes, editors were not taking any action. Ultimately, we decided to set a threshold index, with the full expectation that over time we would lower it.
- For the most part, editors seem satisfied that we’ve hit the right balance deterring plagiarism without substantially increasing editors’ workload. There’s definitely challenges interacting with authors. For the most part, ACS editors view manuscripts with plagiarism issue as opportunities to educate authors. However, it can be challenging to these conversations. One mistake that a number of our editors made as they were learning to communicate with authors was that they would simply tell the author that the similarity index was too high. They didn’t understand that they needed to provide direction to the authors about which particular sections of the manuscript that need to be changed. Self plagiarism is definitely the biggest problem that editors see, and its been challenging to explain copyright and originality to authors. That said, our editors would like some improvements. One improvement is better exclusion of references. Our editors understand how the software works, but authors often include a symbol in front of the reference heading, most likely in an effort to make it look like a published manuscript, which of course prevents the references from being excluded. They would also like better exclusion of sections. We currently have the ability to exclude on sections titled Methods and Materials, or variants of that, but we see a much broader number of titles in our publication program. Additionally, the ability to exclude is also depending on the format the author uses. Trying to get authors to conform to a certain style is very difficult. Editors would also like better ways to focus authors on specific passages. They would like to be able to mark the iThenticate report.
- Of course, the big question is “does it make a difference”? Anecdotally, editors tell us that they are finding less plagiarism in submitted manuscripts than they used to. But its challenging to measure the amount of plagiarism detected. In the ScholarOne Manuscripts environment, there’s no stop in the manuscript workflow when plagiarism is detected. We provided a reporting mechanism for our editors, but its dependent on editors using it. Interestingly enough though, we have noticed that the distribution of similarity indexes is shifting to lower numbers. Recent improvements in reporting tools in the iThenticate environment have made analysis simpler, and while we’re just starting to dig into this, we’re pretty excited about what we see. In this chart, we’re comparing the percentage similarity index for all ACS Journals in October 2013, which is when all our our journals started using CrossCheck versus this past October. If you compare the green bars to the orange bars, you can see that there are less manuscripts at higher similarity indexes and a lot more at lower indexes. We interpret this to mean that CrossCheck is making a difference in our publishing program.
- Hello and thanks for the opportunity to share with you ACS Publications’ experience with CrossCheck. If you were to visit our home page or view any ads for ACS Journals, our logo, ACS Publications: Most Trusted Most Cited Most Read is prominently displayed. We have a number of initiatives aimed at teaching our constituents how to publish in an ethical manner. But when it comes to our published material, we take a “Trust but Verify” approach. Our participation in CrossCheck is one of several initiatives at ACS to verify that authors behave in an ethical matter and ensure that we live up to the “most trusted” part of our logo.