Archives des auteurs : Hans Dillaerts

Transparency versus anonymity: which is better to eliminate bias in peer review?

Posté le par

Authors: Faye Holst, Kim Eggleton, Simon Harris

Peer review is a critical component of the scientific process. When conducted properly by dedicated and competent reviewers, it helps to safeguard the quality, validity, authority and rigour of academic work. However, bias in peer review is well documented and can skew objectivity of the review and hinder fair assessment of research.

To mitigate against bias and enhance accountability, IOP Publishing has introduced two different, but complementary, approaches to all their peer-reviewed, open access (OA) journals: double-anonymous peer review and transparent peer review.

Double-anonymous peer review, where the reviewer and author identities are concealed, is designed to tackle inequality in the scholarly publishing process as it reduces bias with respect to gender, race, country of origin or affiliation.

Transparent peer review shows readers the full peer review history, including reviewer reports, editor decision letters and the authors’ responses alongside the published article. Making this process visible to the community increases accountability, allows reviewers to be recognized more for their work and can aid the training of aspiring reviewers.

IOP Publishing is the first physics publisher to adopt both of these approaches portfolio wide. In this article we discuss how applying these methods has altered different elements of the publishing process. Early indicators show that there may be a marked difference in acceptance rates across regions.

URL : Transparency versus anonymity: which is better to eliminate bias in peer review?

DOI : http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.584

Scientific authorship by gender: trends before and during a global pandemic

Posté le par

Authors : Ji-Young Son, Michelle L. Bell

Many fields of science are still dominated by men. COVID-19 has dramatically changed the nature of work, including for scientists, such as lack of access to key resources and transition to online teaching. Further, scientists face the pandemic-related stressors common to other professions (e.g., childcare, eldercare).

As many of these activities fall more heavily on women, the pandemic may have exacerbated gender disparities in science. We analyzed self-identified gender of corresponding author for 119,592 manuscripts from 151 countries submitted January 2019 to July 2021 to the Institute of Physics (IOP) portfolio of 57 academic journals, with disciplines of astronomy and astrophysics, bioscience, environmental science, materials, mathematics, physics, and interdisciplinary research.

We consider differences by country, journal, and pre-pandemic versus pandemic periods. Gender was self-identified by corresponding author for 82.9% of manuscripts (N = 99,114 for subset of submissions with gender). Of these manuscripts, authors were 82.1% male, 17.8% female, and 0.08% non-binary. Most authors were male for all countries (country-specific values: range 0.0–100.0%, median 86.1%) and every journal (journal-specific values range 63.7–91.5%, median 83.7%).

The contribution of female authors was slightly higher in the pandemic (18.7%) compared to pre-pandemic (16.5%). However, prior to the pandemic, the percent of submissions from women had been increasing, and this value slowed during the pandemic. Contrary to our hypothesis, we did not find that manuscript submissions from women decreased during the pandemic, although the rate of increased submissions evident prior to the pandemic slowed.

In both pre-pandemic and pandemic periods, authorship was overwhelmingly male for all journals, countries, and fields. Further research is needed on impacts of the pandemic on other measures of scientific productivity (e.g., accepted manuscripts, teaching), scientific position (e.g., junior vs. senior scholars), as well as the underlying gender imbalance that persisted before and during the pandemic.

URL : Scientific authorship by gender: trends before and during a global pandemic

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01365-4

Promoting Open Science through bibliometrics : a practical guide to build an open access monitor

Posté le par

Author : Laetitia Bracco

In order to assess the progress of Open Science in France, the French Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation published the French Open Science Monitor in 2019. Even if this tool has a bias, for only the publications with a DOI can be considered, thus promoting article-dominant research communities, its indicators are trustworthy and reliable.

The University of Lorraine was the very first institution to reuse the National Monitor in order to create a new version at the scale of one university in 2020. Since its release, the Lorraine Open Science Monitor has been reused by many other institutions.

In 2022, the French Open Science Monitor further evolved, enabling new insights on open science. The Lorraine Open Science Monitor has also evolved since it began. This paper details how the initial code for the Lorraine Open Science Monitor was developed and disseminated. It then outlines plans for development in the next few years.

URL : Promoting Open Science through bibliometrics : a practical guide to build an open access monitor

DOI : https://doi.org/10.53377/lq.11545

“Knock knock! Who’s there?” A study on scholarly repositories’ availability

Posté le par

Authors : Andrea Mannocci, Miriam Baglioni, Paolo Manghi

Scholarly repositories are the cornerstone of modern open science, and their availability is vital for enacting its practices. To this end, scholarly registries such as FAIRsharing, re3data, OpenDOAR and ROAR give them presence and visibility across different research communities, disciplines, and applications by assigning an identifier and persisting their profiles with summary metadata.

Alas, like any other resource available on the Web, scholarly repositories, be they tailored for literature, software or data, are quite dynamic and can be frequently changed, moved, merged or discontinued.

Therefore, their references are prone to link rot over time, and their availability often boils down to whether the homepage URLs indicated in authoritative repository profiles within scholarly registries respond or not.

For this study, we harvested the content of four prominent scholarly registries and resolved over 13 thousand unique repository URLs. By performing a quantitative analysis on such an extensive collection of repositories, this paper aims to provide a global snapshot of their availability, which bewilderingly is far from granted.

URL : https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.12879

Preprints as a driver of open science: Opportunities for Southeast Asia

Posté le par

Authors : Dasapta Erwin Irawan, Hilyatuz Zahroh, Iratxe Puebla

Southeast Asia is an emerging force of open access scholarly output. For example, Indonesia is in a tight competition with United Kingdom as the largest publisher of open access journals and the second largest producer of open access articles in the world (according to DOAJ and the COKI OA Dashboard, respectively).

However, this support for open practices is not yet reflected in institutional research policies in Southeast Asian countries, which still rely on criteria influenced by world university rankings that focus on publication outputs and do not incorporate elements related to research culture, integrity, or open science.

Preprints have gained increasing attention across disciplines in the last few years, but they are still not included in institutional policies in SouthEast Asia. This paper discusses the potential for preprints to be a driving force for open science and for quality and integrity in scholarly outputs from Southeast Asia.

There is a fledgling preprinting culture in the region, catalyzed by the RINarxiv preprint server in Indonesia and the Malaysia Open Science Platform. We argue that preprints have many advantages: opportunities for open access and for researchers to maintain copyright to their work, wide dissemination, encouraging feedback and critical thinking, and community governance.

With these advantages, preprints can become a fast and open communication hub between researchers and all stakeholders in the research process. We recommend regulatory and practical steps to incorporate preprints into science policy and researchers’ practices as an effort to promote research integrity, open data and reproducibility.

URL : Preprints as a driver of open science: Opportunities for Southeast Asia

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2022.992942

The Role of Publons in the Context of Open Peer Review

Posté le par

Authors : Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, Serhii Nazarovets

Publons was a peer reviewer rewards platform that aimed to recognize the contribution that academics made during peer review to a journal. For about 10 years of its existence, Publons became the most popular service among peer reviewers.

Having gained traction and popularity, Publons was purchased in 2017 by Clarivate Analytics (now Clarivate), and many academics, journals and publishers invested time and effort to participate in Publons. Using Publons, various peer review-related experiments or pilot programs were initiated by some academic publishers regarding the introduction of open peer review into their journals’ editorial processes.

In this paper, we examine pertinent literature related to Publons, and reflect on its benefits and flaws during its short-lived history. In mid-August 2022, Clarivate fused Publons into the Web of Science platform.

Publons, as a brand peer review service, has now ceased to exist but some of the functionality remains in Web of Science while other aspects that used to be open and free at Publons are now paid-for services.

We reflect on the effect of such experiments, which initially had bold and ambitious academic objectives to fortify peer review, on academics’ trust, especially when such projects become commercialized.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-022-09914-0

Evaluation and publication delay in Ibero-American scientific journals

Posté le par

Authors : Jon Zabala, Borja González-Albo, Ana García-García, Aurora Garrido-Domínguez, José Ignacio Vidal-Liy, Luis R. Álvarez-Díez, Soledad Hernando-Tundidor, Yara Mostazo-Fernández, Teresa Abejón

This article analyses the review, acceptance and publication dates of a sample of 21,890 articles from 326 Ibero-American scientific journals from all subject areas and countries included in the Latindex Catalogue 2.0 and published between 2018 and 2020 (freely available as an open access dataset).

The aim is to discover evaluation and publication times. The evaluation process takes a median of 110 days, the publication process, a median of 82 days, and the whole process, a median of 224 days. Statistical differences are found according to periodicity, subject areas, countries, existence of a printed version and article type (Call for Papers or General articles). From the data we find that the delay in publication is longer than publishers themselves report to the DOAJ.

STEM areas present the most similarity in publication patterns, having a higher number of evaluation days (Ed) than publication days (Pd); Arts and Humanities present the opposite pattern, with a higher Pd than Ed. In the case of Social Sciences, the times are similar. General articles and Call for Papers articles differ in terms of Ed, but not Pd, indicating that Call for Papers revisions are faster.

URL : Evaluation and publication delay in Ibero-American scientific journals

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1497