Scott Edmunds for #PeerRevWk17: Confessions of a pre-print &amp; open peer review lover

This document discusses trends in scientific retractions and post-publication peer review. It notes that retractions have been increasing in recent years, with the number of retractions doubling roughly every 8 years. It also discusses how blogs have helped uncover issues with published papers and influenced journals to be more responsive. Finally, it explores new models of post-publication peer review using public commenting and alternative metrics to better evaluate impact after initial publication.

Pioneers of Medical Devices

jamesspc

The document provides instructions for an assignment on medical device pioneers. Students are to choose a pioneer from a list, research the medical device they developed or advanced, and create a PowerPoint presentation with details on who they were, what they invented, when and where. They will post their presentation to the instructor's blog and comment on a classmate's post. The document lists helpful resources and questions students should answer in their presentation.

What is Ethical Behaviour in Science Research?

Dawn Bazely

In 2014, I returned to the Biology Department after being the director of a York University research institute for 7 years. Based on that experience, I expanded the topics discussed at my weekly lab meetings to include more of the so-called "soft-skills" that were not being explicitly covered in science courses . This included the topic of ethics in research. I also introduced science communication training for my students. This included showing students how to make Pecha Kucha style presentations. Here is my 20 slide x 20 seconds talk on the topic of ethical behaviour in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics).

How anonymous post-publication peer review uncovers bad science

Covering Medical Studies: How Not to Get It Wrong

This document provides guidance on how to accurately summarize and report on medical studies to avoid misrepresenting results. It emphasizes the importance of reading full studies, asking clarifying questions of authors, considering limitations and biases, disclosing conflicts of interest, and relying on outside experts rather than just study authors when evaluating results. The goal is to help readers make informed health decisions by providing coverage that reflects the evidence objectively and acknowledges uncertainty.

How to Avoid Publication in Predatory Medical Journal

Cognibrain Healthcare

Reviewers (And Editors) Behaving Badly

This document discusses issues of scientific misconduct in biomedicine. It provides examples of scientists who have manipulated data or fabricated results, including Kathrin Maedler targeting IL-1b to cure diabetes, Pontus Boström and Bruce Spiegelman discovering Irisin, Irun Cohen framing a dying man in vaccine research, Junyi Shen and Hui Cai reusing data on TCM nanoparticles, and Mario Saad breeding Western blots. It notes how junior scientists feel pressure to deliver expected results or risk losing their jobs and careers, and how bad research can quickly impact patient care.

Inside Publishing Misconduct: Fraud, Plagiarism and Other Editorial Misadvent...

How Often Are Studies Wrong?

Ivan Oransky presented on the frequency of irreproducible studies and the costs associated with non-reproducible preclinical research. An analysis of 53 landmark studies found that scientific findings were confirmed in only 6 cases (11%), despite limitations being acknowledged upfront. A separate analysis found that over 50% of cumulative preclinical research is irreproducible, costing $28 billion annually in the US alone. Oransky also discussed rising retraction rates and efforts by scientists to address issues of reproducibility.

2014 CrossRef Annual Meeting Peer Review Panel: Do it once, do it well – ques...

Crossref

1) The document discusses problems with the traditional peer review system used by most scientific journals. 2) It proposes an alternative called "Peerage of Science" which aims to give authors and reviewers more ownership over the review process. 3) Key aspects of Peerage of Science include enforcing time limits on reviews, allowing concurrent submissions to multiple journals, peer review of the peer reviews, and allowing open engagement between authors and reviewers.

CEPLAS Cologne June 2017: Research misconduct; science‘s self administered ...

How Journalists Can Effectively -- And Safely -- Report on Scientific Fraud

Ivan Oransky discusses how journalists can effectively and safely report on scientific fraud. He recommends getting to know sites like PubPeer that allow commenting on published studies, reading the comments which may reveal issues, filing public records requests to obtain internal reports, checking sites for retractions and misconduct records, and collaborating with Retraction Watch. However, he cautions journalists to beware of potential legal issues and lawyers when investigating scientific fraud cases.

Staying Honest, despite being in Academia

How to do_a_pico_search_final 11072021

This document provides instructions for conducting a PICOT search to answer the question "Does the use of heel protection protocol in supine positioned surgical patients decrease the incidence of heel pressure ulcers?". It explains the PICOT components of patient population, intervention, comparison, outcome, and time. Keywords are identified for each PICOT element from the question. The PICOT search form organizes keywords by PICOT component and indicates whether related terms should be searched with "OR" or "AND". The document directs searching CINAHL using subject headings converted from keywords and filters such as limiting to the last 5 years. It notes a search of this question retrieved 33 relevant citations.

HPHY 212 Week 3, lecture 1 publications-fall 2014

University of Oregon

Public health research guide update

This document provides a 5-step guide to creating a search statement in databases for public health research. The steps are: 1) decide on a topic, 2) identify key concepts and related terms, 3) map terms to controlled vocabularies like MeSH headings, 4) build a search statement using MeSH terms and hierarchies, 5) perform an actual search in PubMed using the search statement, selecting related records and filters. The guide uses the topic of global warming and emerging infectious diseases as an example to demonstrate identifying concepts, related terms, and building a search statement in PubMed.

Public health research guide update

This document provides a 5-step guide to creating a search statement in databases for public health research. The steps are: 1) decide on a topic, 2) identify key concepts and related terms, 3) map terms to controlled vocabularies like MeSH, 4) build the search statement using MeSH terms and hierarchies, 5) perform the search in a database like PubMed and filter results. The guide also provides an example search on the topic of global warming and emerging infectious diseases to illustrate the process.

Rutgers

National Information Standards Organization (NISO)

Retractions of scientific papers are increasing and most are due to misconduct such as image manipulation or faked data. However, journals do not always adequately notify readers of retractions. Studies have found that only 6-8% of citations to retracted papers acknowledge the retraction. Post-publication peer review on sites like PubPeer are becoming more common and helping to catch errors or misconduct that were missed during the initial peer review process. Journals are starting to respond to issues raised on sites like PubPeer but more transparency is still needed regarding retractions.

Nursing Research at St. Francis College

miyolibrarian

Cochran "The Impact of Preprints on Scholarly Societies: Business Models and ...

Climate change (PPW)

midkiff77

This document discusses climate change skepticism and some of the reasons for skepticism. It defines a skeptic as someone who doubts claims of knowledge in a particular field of inquiry. It provides background on Roy Spencer, a prominent climate skeptic, and notes that he has received funding from ExxonMobil. Five common reasons for climate skepticism are outlined, including arguments that there has been no recent warming, the causes of warming are uncertain, and climate models have limitations. However, the document states that research on individuals is needed before believing what is read, and that oil and energy companies have a financial stake in climate change.

Fixing Scholarly Publishing (Cologne 6.4.2018)

Exs 100 fall11 dc

Danielle Carlock

This document provides an overview of the goals and activities for an EXS 101 session. The session will focus on finding high-quality career resources and research articles in exercise science. Students will evaluate the trustworthiness of different websites and learn how to use the library catalog and databases to find career information, books, and journal articles. They will also learn about the peer review process and important journals in the field of exercise science, such as the Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance and the Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise.

CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH IN CARDIOLOGY

Annex Publishers

Journal of Clinical and Experimental Research in Cardiology (JCERC) is an international open access, scholarly peer-reviewed journal publishing high quality articles in all areas of cardiology related fields, especially current research, new concepts, novel methods, new therapeutic agents, and approaches for early detection and prevention of cardiac disorders and reporting new methods on basic and advanced clinical aspects of cardiology research.

From Bench to Bedside: Bad Science Kills

Reputation, authority and incentives. Or: How to get rid of the Impact Factor

Björn Brembs

The document discusses issues with the current journal impact factor system and proposes alternatives that provide a more comprehensive assessment of research. It suggests moving beyond just counting citations and journal hierarchy to evaluate where work is published, media coverage, community feedback and ratings, usage statistics, and other alternative metrics. The current impact factor system is criticized as being narrowly focused only on citations, irreproducible, and failing to assess the quality and reach of individual articles.

Lec 14 Authorship Issues

This document discusses authorship standards and issues in scientific publishing. It outlines why author order and attribution matter for communicating who did the research and granting proper credit. It describes problematic authorship situations like ghost writers and guest authors that can mislead readers. The document also summarizes International Committee of Medical Journal Editors standards for authorship and calls for more explicit identification of author contributions to increase accountability. It raises some concerns about peer review being misused to delay competitors' work.

Authorship Issues

What's hot

The art of dishonesty in biomedicine

Inside Publishing Misconduct: Fraud, Plagiarism and Other Editorial Misadvent...

How Often Are Studies Wrong?

2014 CrossRef Annual Meeting Peer Review Panel: Do it once, do it well – ques...

Crossref

CEPLAS Cologne June 2017: Research misconduct; science‘s self administered ...

How Journalists Can Effectively -- And Safely -- Report on Scientific Fraud

Staying Honest, despite being in Academia

How to do_a_pico_search_final 11072021

HPHY 212 Week 3, lecture 1 publications-fall 2014

University of Oregon

Public health research guide update

Public health research guide update

This document provides a 5-step guide to creating a search statement in databases for public health research. The steps are: 1) decide on a topic, 2) identify key concepts and related terms, 3) map terms to controlled vocabularies like MeSH, 4) build the search statement using MeSH terms and hierarchies, 5) perform the search in a database like PubMed and filter results. The guide also provides an example search on the topic of global warming and emerging infectious diseases to illustrate the process.

Rutgers

National Information Standards Organization (NISO)

Nursing Research at St. Francis College

miyolibrarian

Cochran "The Impact of Preprints on Scholarly Societies: Business Models and ...

Climate change (PPW)

midkiff77

Fixing Scholarly Publishing (Cologne 6.4.2018)

Exs 100 fall11 dc

Danielle Carlock

CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH IN CARDIOLOGY

Annex Publishers

From Bench to Bedside: Bad Science Kills

Reputation, authority and incentives. Or: How to get rid of the Impact Factor

Björn Brembs

What's hot (20)

The art of dishonesty in biomedicine

Inside Publishing Misconduct: Fraud, Plagiarism and Other Editorial Misadvent...

How Often Are Studies Wrong?

2014 CrossRef Annual Meeting Peer Review Panel: Do it once, do it well – ques...

CEPLAS Cologne June 2017: Research misconduct; science‘s self administered ...

How Journalists Can Effectively -- And Safely -- Report on Scientific Fraud

Staying Honest, despite being in Academia

How to do_a_pico_search_final 11072021

HPHY 212 Week 3, lecture 1 publications-fall 2014

Public health research guide update

Rutgers

Nursing Research at St. Francis College

Cochran "The Impact of Preprints on Scholarly Societies: Business Models and ...

Climate change (PPW)

Fixing Scholarly Publishing (Cologne 6.4.2018)

Exs 100 fall11 dc

CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH IN CARDIOLOGY

From Bench to Bedside: Bad Science Kills

Reputation, authority and incentives. Or: How to get rid of the Impact Factor

Similar to Scott Edmunds for #PeerRevWk17: Confessions of a pre-print & open peer review lover

Lec 14 Authorship Issues

Authorship Issues

SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

Jessica Polka - The future of Peer Review | OpenUP Final Conference

OpenUP project

Jessica Polka talking about the future of Peer Review at the OpenUP Final Conference. Jessica Polka is Executive Director of ASAPbio, a researcher-driven non-profit working to promote innovation and transparency in life sciences communication. ASAPbio aims to accelerate cultural change in two areas: preprints and open peer review reports. She became a visiting scholar at the Whitehead Institute and a research affiliate at MIT Libraries following postdoctoral research in synthetic biology at the Harvard Medical School and a PhD in biochemistry and cell biology at the University of California, San Francisco. A few words about OpenUP Final Conference - Review | Assess | Disseminate OpenUP Final Conference is the final conference of the EU funded H2020 project OpenUP. In OpenUP Final Conference, key aspects and challenges of the currently transforming science landscape were showcased in different interactive sessions, including an Open Science Cafe and Marketplace for new and innovative tools, methods and ideas. Different Motivate and Meet sessions fostered interaction and exchange in the context of Open Science. It brought together different stakeholders who have a "stake" in the researcher lifecycle and helped them to learn about innovative methods for peer review, dissemination of research results and impact measurement, and get involved in shaping open science policies meeting their needs. More information about OpenUP Website: http://openup-h2020.eu OpenUP Hub: https://openuphub.eu Twitter: https://twitter.com/ProjectOpenUP Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/projectopenup/

Contributorship credit 23_august2019

Alex Holcombe

The document discusses problems with traditional authorship practices in scientific publishing and proposes contributorship as an alternative. Traditional authorship obscures individual contributions, allows honorary authorships, and does not support growing specialization in science. Contributorship would provide a formal record of specific contributions using a standardized taxonomy and address issues of fairness, accountability, and efficient allocation of resources.

Open Research Practices in the Age of a Papermill Pandemic

Dorothy Bishop

Uncovering the Impact Story of Open Research

Heather Piwowar

ofsp.10693

Christian Schmidt

This editorial introduces The American Journal of Immunology as a new open access journal in the field of immunology. It discusses key topics in immunology like immune cell interactions with the nervous system and developmental stages of cells. The journal operates under an open access model to increase visibility and commitment to scholarly rigor. Debates on ethical issues in clinical trials are best suited for open access journals, where reasoned arguments from both sides can be accessed by the public. The journal aims to be a forum for exchanging ideas and concepts to benefit the life sciences community.

It’s publishing but not as you know it: How Open is Changing Everything

Danny Kingsley

This is a talk given as part of Open Access Week 2021 (#OAWeek2021) at Flinders University. Abstract: Despite the seismic shifts of the last couple of decades with the introduction of the internet, scholarly publishing has remained basically unchanged. The Mertonian norms were established in 1942 when science was ‘under attack’, and today science is once more being questioned. It is time to return to our base principles. The open agenda offers a path not only to reproducibility and increased trust in research, but also addresses questions related to research culture, allowing a more diverse and inclusive environment.

What's wrong with scholarly publishing today?

Björn Brembs

The document discusses various metrics for evaluating scholarly articles and journals, including the impact factor, h-index, and alternative proposed metrics. It notes criticisms of current metrics like the impact factor, including that it is calculated inconsistently, favors particular publishers, and does not accurately reflect the impact of individual articles. The document advocates developing new metrics that consider wider factors like citations, usage, social bookmarks, comments, and expert ratings.

Ivone Cabral – WG5: Scientific Publishing Innovations and the Future of Peer ...

With the progress towards open science, scientific communication is facing a new wave of innovations towards more openness and speed of research publication which will deeply affect the way the peer review function is carried out and the overall role of journals in assuring quality and adding value to manuscripts. Several initiatives are promoting the generalized adoption of open access preprints as a formal beginning stage of research publication, which has been common since the 90’s in the physics community. And, in the last decade, new ways to carry out the evaluation of manuscripts have emerged either to replace or to improve the traditional methods, which are widely criticized as being slow and expensive in addition to lacking transparency. Quality nonprofit journals from emerging and developing countries have succeeded to follow the main innovations brought by the Internet. In addition to the technicalities of the digital publishing, there is a wide adoption of Open Access in the international flow of scientific information. The new wave of innovations that affect the peer review function and the changing role of journals pose new challenges to the emerging and developing countries in regard of scientific publishing. The adoption of these innovations is essential for progress of SciELO as a leading open access program to enhance scientific communication. The scope of this workshop aims at an in-depth analysis and discussion of the state of art and main trends of the peer review function, the modalities of carrying it out as well as of the increasing adoption of mechanisms to speed publication such as preprints and how they affect and potentially renew the role of journals. These recommendations will guide SciELO policies on manuscript evaluation and on the adoption of preprint publications.

Accept with revisions: The evolving peer review landscape

Scholastica

Peer review is evolving as the research landscape changes. While peer review ensures research quality, challenges include reproducibility and bias. Journals are addressing issues like transparency, diversity, and standards compliance through initiatives promoting preprints, registered reports, open data badges, and guidelines on inclusion. Overall, peer review remains important but reforms aim to uphold scholarly ideals while encouraging openness, access, and accountability across the research community.

Nature impact

Mettine Bos

The document discusses the negative impacts of over-reliance on bibliometrics and journal impact factors in assessing scientific merit and making hiring decisions. It argues that counting publications and citations fails to evaluate a scientist's creative contributions and long-term potential. Focusing solely on publishing in high-impact journals distorts the nature of scientific work, forcing papers into narrow topics and brevity at the cost of depth and usability. Individual scientists and institutions must resist overemphasizing bibliometrics and make hiring decisions based on true scientific merit rather than superficial metrics.

97% of climate scientists agree fact or fiction_issue 1_160925

Gordon Hirst

The document discusses the claim that 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change poses risks from human activities. It notes that this figure comes from a 2013 scientific study but has since taken on an almost mythical status in public debates. The author aims to provide a clear, level-headed examination of where the 97% figure came from, how accurate it is, and why it has become so divisive. The document outlines the scientific process and how science is perceived differently by experts and the public through media coverage.

Advice to junior researchers: High or low road to success?

James Coyne

Ethics in peer review

Bhavna Gupta

Scientific Papers and Communications

Rethinking Metrics of International Growth and Impact of Open Access

Leslie Chan

This document discusses the need to rethink metrics used to measure the impact and growth of open access research, especially from developing countries. Currently, metrics like the Journal Impact Factor prioritize research seen as "new" by Western standards, despite important research being done elsewhere. Open access helps disseminate this diverse research but structural barriers remain. The document calls for aligning funding policies with new, broader metrics of impact that consider local knowledge and problems, in order to build a truly global and equitable scholarly system.

Problem-citations--CrossrefLive18--2018-11-13

jodischneider

Publishers are caretakers of science. Part of that work is maintaining the integrity of scientific literature. Science builds directly upon past work, so we need to be sure that we are building upon a solid foundation and not faulty research. Publishers need to take an active role in monitoring and tracking faulty, retracted research and its influence. I'm asking publishers to (1) clearly mark retracted papers; (2) alert authors who have already cited a retracted paper; and (3) before publishing an article, check its bibliography for retracted papers. Retracted papers should be clearly marked everywhere they appear, but today that is not the case. Publishers can also use the CrossRef CrossMark service, which lets readers check for article updates (such as retraction) from a little red ribbon at the top of an article. Checking for citations to retracted articles, and limiting future citations, can help science self-correct by shoring up its foundations.

Panorama Praktik Sains Terbuka

Juneman Abraham

This document discusses open science practices and values. It begins by defining key aspects of open science like transparency, open peer review, and interoperability. It then shares aspirations of researchers and users for open science tools, such as tools that allow fair comparisons across fields and ways to make research more accessible to non-experts. Finally, it outlines several drivers of open science going forward, such as incentives for open practices, overcoming stigma around open access journals, balancing sentiments in open peer review, and moving beyond just publications to recognize other contributions like data deposition.

Lec13 Scientific Papers and Communications