Preventing the ends from justifying the means: withholding results to address publication bias in peer-review

Authors : Katherine S. Button, Liz Bal, Anna Clark, Tim Shipley

The evidence that many of the findings in the published literature may be unreliable is compelling. There is an excess of positive results, often from studies with small sample sizes, or other methodological limitations, and the conspicuous absence of null findings from studies of a similar quality.

This distorts the evidence base, leading to false conclusions and undermining scientific progress. Central to this problem is a peer-review system where the decisions of authors, reviewers, and editors are more influenced by impressive results than they are by the validity of the study design.

To address this, BMC Psychology is launching a pilot to trial a new ‘results-free’ peer-review process, whereby editors and reviewers are blinded to the study’s results, initially assessing manuscripts on the scientific merits of the rationale and methods alone.

The aim is to improve the reliability and quality of published research, by focusing editorial decisions on the rigour of the methods, and preventing impressive ends justifying poor means.

URL : Preventing the ends from justifying the means: withholding results to address publication bias in peer-review

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-016-0167-7

Understanding the Changing Roles of Scientific Publications via Citation Embeddings

Authors : Jiangen He, Chaomei Chen

Researchers may describe different aspects of past scientific publications in their publications and the descriptions may keep changing in the evolution of science. The diverse and changing descriptions (i.e., citation context) on a publication characterize the impact and contributions of the past publication.

In this article, we aim to provide an approach to understanding the changing and complex roles of a publication characterized by its citation context. We described a method to represent the publications’ dynamic roles in science community in different periods as a sequence of vectors by training temporal embedding models.

The temporal representations can be used to quantify how much the roles of publications changed and interpret how they changed.

Our study in the biomedical domain shows that our metric on the changes of publications’ roles is stable over time at the population level but significantly distinguish individuals. We also show the interpretability of our methods by a concrete example.

URL : https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.05822

A review of data sharing statements in observational studies published in the BMJ: A cross-sectional study

Authors : Laura McDonald, Anna Schultze, Alex Simpson, Sophie Graham, Radek Wasiak, Sreeram V. Ramagopalan

In order to understand the current state of data sharing in observational research studies, we reviewed data sharing statements of observational studies published in a general medical journal, the British Medical Journal.

We found that the majority (63%) of observational studies published between 2015 and 2017 included a statement that implied that data used in the study could not be shared. If the findings of our exploratory study are confirmed, room for improvement in the sharing of real-world or observational research data exists.

URL : A review of data sharing statements in observational studies published in the BMJ: A cross-sectional study

DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12673.2

Green on What Side of the Fence? Librarian Perceptions of Accepted Author Manuscripts

Authors : Jimmy Ghaphery, Sam Byrd, Hillary Miller

INTRODUCTION

There is a growing body of accepted author manuscripts (AAMs) in national, professional, and institutional repositories. This study seeks to explore librarian attitudes about AAMs and in what contexts they should be recommended.

Particular attention is paid to differences between the attitudes of librarians whose primary job responsibilities are within the field of scholarly communications as opposed to the rest of the profession.

METHODS

An Internet survey was sent to nine different professional listservs, asking for voluntary anonymous participation.

RESULTS

This study finds that AAMs are considered an acceptable source by many librarians, with scholarly communications librarians more willing to recommend AAMs in higher-stakes contexts such as health care and dissertation research.

DISCUSSION

Librarian AAM attitudes are discussed, with suggestions for future research and implications for librarians.

URL : Green on What Side of the Fence? Librarian Perceptions of Accepted Author Manuscripts

DOI : http://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2204

Potentiel scientifique et technique d’un laboratoire : Favoriser l’innovation, protéger les savoirs : un équilibre délicat

Auteur/Author : Jean-Pierre Damiano

Le potentiel scientifique et technique d’un laboratoire de recherche confère un caractère stratégique à la protection de son système d’information. Les atteintes peuvent tout aussi bien toucher ses données scientifiques ou technologiques que ses outils ou ses moyens scientifiques, techniques ou humains.

Le laboratoire vit souvent dans un environnement complexe par la diversité de ses tutelles et la diversification de ses ressources, tout en étant confronté à une compétition scientifique croissante. Face aux risques encourus, il convient d’identifier ce qui doit être protégé, de quantifier l’enjeu correspondant, de formuler des objectifs de sécurité et de mettre en œuvre les parades adaptées au niveau de sécurité retenu.

Un tel plan d’actions conduit à des règles. Pour qu’elles soient acceptées, elles ne doivent pas entraver la recherche, la compétitivité, les échanges et les coopérations nationales et internationales, la diffusion à travers les brevets, les publications et les congrès, etc. C’est un équilibre délicat à trouver et à maintenir.

URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01633310

Examining publishing practices: moving beyond the idea of predatory open access

Author : Kevin L. Smith

The word ‘predatory’ has become an obstacle to a serious discussion of publishing practices. Its use has been both overinclusive, encompassing practices that, while undesirable, are not malicious, and underinclusive, missing many exploitative practices outside the open access sphere.

The article examines different business models for scholarly publishing and considers the potential for abuse with each model. After looking at the problems of both blacklists and so-called ‘whitelists’, the author suggests that the best path forward would be to create tools to capture the real experience of individual authors as they navigate the publishing process with different publishers.

URL : Examining publishing practices: moving beyond the idea of predatory open access

DOI : http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.388

Faculty Attitudes toward Open Access and Scholarly Communications: Disciplinary Differences on an Urban and Health Science Campus

Authors : Jere Odell, Kristi Palmer, Emily Dill

Access to scholarship in the health sciences has greatly increased in the last decade. The adoption of the 2008 U.S. National Institutes of Health Public Access Policy and the launch of successful open access journals in health sciences have done much to move the exchange of scholarship beyond the subscription-only model.

One might assume, therefore, that scholars publishing in the health sciences would be more supportive of these changes. However, the results of this survey of attitudes on a campus with a large medical faculty show that health science respondents were uncertain of the value of recent changes in the scholarly communication system.

URL : Faculty Attitudes toward Open Access and Scholarly Communications: Disciplinary Differences on an Urban and Health Science Campus

DOI : http://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2169