Étiquette : scientific communication

Catégories
EN

A decentralized future for the open-science databases

Authors : Gaurav Sharma, Viorel Munteanu, Nika Mansouri Ghiasi, Jineta Banerjee, Susheel Varma, Luca Foschini, Kyle Ellrott, Onur Mutlu, Dumitru Ciorbă, Roel A. Ophoff, Viorel Bostan, Christopher E Mason, Jason H. Moore, Despoina Sousoni, Arunkumar Krishnan, Christopher E. Mason, Mihai Dimian, Gustavo Stolovitzky, Fabio G. Liberante, Taras K. Oleksyk, Serghei Mangul

Continuous and reliable access to curated biological data repositories is indispensable for accelerating rigorous scientific inquiry and fostering reproducible research. Centralized repositories, though widely used, are vulnerable to single points of failure arising from cyberattacks, technical faults, natural disasters, or funding and political uncertainties.

This can lead to widespread data unavailability, data loss, integrity compromises, and substantial delays in critical research, ultimately impeding scientific progress. Centralizing essential scientific resources in a single geopolitical or institutional hub is inherently dangerous, as any disruption can paralyze diverse ongoing research.

The rapid acceleration of data generation, combined with an increasingly volatile global landscape, necessitates a critical re-evaluation of the sustainability of centralized models. Implementing federated and decentralized architectures presents a compelling and future-oriented pathway to substantially strengthen the resilience of scientific data infrastructures, thereby mitigating vulnerabilities and ensuring the long-term integrity of data.

Here, we examine the structural limitations of centralized repositories, evaluate federated and decentralized models, and propose a hybrid framework for resilient, FAIR, and sustainable scientific data stewardship. Such an approach offers a significant reduction in exposure to governance instability, infrastructural fragility, and funding volatility, and also fosters fairness and global accessibility.

The future of open science depends on integrating these complementary approaches to establish a globally distributed, economically sustainable, and institutionally robust infrastructure that safeguards scientific data as a public good, further ensuring continued accessibility, interoperability, and preservation for generations to come.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2509.19206

Catégories
EN

Trends of Publication of Negative Trials Over Time

Authors : Bruno Laviolle, Clara Locher, Jean-Sébastien Allain, Quentin Le Cornu, Pierre Charpentier, Marie Lefebvre, Clémence Le Pape, Cyril Leven, Clément Palpacuer, Clémence Pontoizeau, Eric Bellissant, Florian Naudet

Studies with negative results are less likely to be published than others, potentially leading to publication bias. Introduced in 2000, trial registration could have participated in decreasing the proportion of unpublished studies. We assessed the proportion of negative randomized controlled trials (RCT) over the last 20 years.

We searched Medline for RCT published in 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020 in the British Medical Journal, the Journal of the American Medical Association, the Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine. The primary endpoint was the proportion of negative (final comparison on the primary study-endpoint without statistical significance or favoring the control arm) studies published in 2000 and 2020.

Factors independently associated with the publication of negative studies were identified using multivariable analysis. A total of 1,542 studies were included. The proportion of negative RCT significantly increased between 2000 and 2020 (from 27.6% to 37.4%; P = 0.01), however, the trend over time was not significant (P = 0.203). In multivariable analysis, the following factors were associated with a higher proportion of published negative studies: superiority (P < 0.001), two-group trials (P < 0.001), number of patients ≥510 (P < 0.001), cardiology trials (P = 0.003), emergency/critical care trials (P < 0.001), obstetrics trials (P = 0.032), surgery trials (P = 0.006), pneumology trials (P = 0.029).

Exclusive industry funding was associated with a lower proportion of published negative studies (P < 0.001). The proportion of published negative studies in 2020 was higher only when compared to 2000. During the two decades, no trend was noticeable. There is no clear relationship between trial registration and the publication of negative results over time.

URL : Trends of Publication of Negative Trials Over Time

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.3535

Catégories
EN

Publish-Review-Curate Modelling for Data Paper and Dataset: A Collaborative Approach

Authors : Youngim Jung, Sungsoo Robert Ahn

Research datasets—capturing natural, societal, or artificial phenomena—are critical in generating new scientific insights, validating research models, and supporting data-intensive discovery. Data papers that describe and contextualise these datasets aim to ensure their findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability (FAIR) while providing academic credit to data creators.

However, the peer review of data papers and associated datasets presents considerable challenges, requiring reviewers to assess both the syntactic and semantic integrity of the data, metadata quality, and domain-specific scientific relevance. Furthermore, the coordination between journal editors, reviewers, and curators demands substantial effort, often leading to publication delays in the conventional review and then publishing framework.

This study proposes a novel Publish-Review-Curate (PRC) model tailored to the synchronised publication and review of data papers and their underlying datasets. Building on preprint and open science practices, the model defines a collaborative, multi-stakeholder workflow involving authors, peer reviewers, data experts, and journal editors.

The PRC model integrates open feedback, transparent peer review, and structured curation to improve research data’s quality, discoverability, and impact. By articulating conceptual and operational workflows, this study contributes a practical framework for modernising data publishing infrastructures and supporting the co-evaluation of narrative and data artefacts.

URL : Publish-Review-Curate Modelling for Data Paper and Dataset: A Collaborative Approach

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2024

Catégories
FR

TheConversation.com : relais de l’expertise des universitaires et chercheurs au sein de l’espace médiatique

Auteur : Edern Appéré

La crise sanitaire liée au covid-19 a révélé les rapports parfois difficiles entre science et médias. De nombreuses critiques ont été adressées aux médias sur leur traitement de la maladie, notamment sur le manque de connaissances scientifiques des journalistes, leurs difficultés à comprendre et expliquer la science en train de se faire, les choix discutables d’experts sollicités. L’importance pour le grand public de disposer d’informations fiables, vérifiées, provenant de personnes dont c’est le domaine d’expertise, a été plus que jamais mise en lumière.

Fondé en 2011 en Australie, le média TheConversation.com a pour ambition de renouveler la manière dont scientifiques et journalistes travaillent ensemble. Ce média se présente sous la forme d’un site web d’information généraliste qui aborde tous les sujets qui font l’actualité. La principale spécificité de son modèle éditorial est que les articles sont tous rédigés par des chercheurs, assistés de journalistes, dans une démarche de vulgarisation scientifique. Ce modèle original est résumé par la devise « L’expertise universitaire, l’exigence journalistique ».

Ce mémoire, concentré sur l’édition française de The Conversation cherche à répondre aux questions, légitimes, que ce média atypique ne manque de susciter : le contrat de lecture énoncé est-il respecté ? TheConversation.com atteint-il sa promesse de donner la parole aux chercheurs pour informer et éclairer le débat public ?

URL : https://dumas.ccsd.cnrs.fr/dumas-04965431v1

Catégories
EN

Greenwashing at Elsevier: A political ecology of corporate publishing

Authors : Angus Lyall, Mark Ortiz, Emily Billo

The largest science publishing corporations, including Elsevier, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, Springer, and Sage, are key partners for the oil, gas, and coal industries insofar as they distribute scientific research and data that facilitate fossil fuel exploration, production, and distribution.

Critical researchers seldom trace fossil fuels and, in turn, the climate crisis to the publishing corporations that they generally rely upon to distribute their own research. We argue that corporate publishers produce the invisibility of their connections to fossil fuels through changing practices of greenwashing both in the public sphere and within firms.

We detail marketing and management practices in the case of the largest science publisher in the world: Elsevier. On the one hand, we examine evolving forms of green marketing. On the other hand, building on recent calls for political ecologies of labor, we highlight the proliferation of ‘greenwashing rituals’ within the firm – i.e., performative, management-sponsored dialogues and actions regarding climate change.

We suggest that researchers continue to expand frameworks for critiquing the fossil fuel industry to include auxiliary industries such as corporate publishing.

URL : Greenwashing at Elsevier: A political ecology of corporate publishing

DOI : https://doi.org/10.2458/jpe.6276

Catégories
EN

Evaluation of Faculty Knowledge of Predatory Journals in the United States: A Cross-Institutional Survey

Authors : Nicole R. Webber, Stephanie Wiegand, Jason A. Cohen, John M. Reynolds, Lisa Ancelet, Arlene V. Salazar

Predatory journals are a known hazard in modern academic research publishing, with research and anecdotal accounts indicating that they exploit inexperienced researchers. Most literature on the topic centres on specific disciplines and/or countries deemed ‘more vulnerable’ to publishing scams.

At the time of publication, no studies have examined a full range of disciplines at institutions across the United States. Our research collected responses from 1098 faculty at 17 US doctoral universities using a multi-disciplinary survey to assess self-reported knowledge and awareness of predatory publishing.

In this analysis, we investigated participants’ reported knowledge levels of predatory journals in relation to four aspects: academic discipline, years employed in academic research, number of articles published, and early career researcher status.

We conclude that the relationship between experience and knowledge of predatory publishing depends on the definition of experience employed, and that the number of recent articles published by a faculty member is a more reliable indicator of knowledge about predatory publishing than the other measures of experience investigated.

URL : Evaluation of Faculty Knowledge of Predatory Journals in the United States: A Cross-Institutional Survey

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2020

 

Catégories
EN

Does ChatGPT Ignore Article Retractions and Other Reliability Concerns?

Authors : Mike Thelwall, Marianna Lehtisaari, Irini Katsirea, Kim Holmberg, Er-Te Zheng

Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT seem to be increasingly used for information seeking and analysis, including to support academic literature reviews. To test whether the results might sometimes include retracted research, we identified 217 retracted or otherwise concerning academic studies with high altmetric scores and asked ChatGPT 4o-mini to evaluate their quality 30 times each.

Surprisingly, none of its 6510 reports mentioned that the articles were retracted or had relevant errors, and it gave 190 relatively high scores (world leading, internationally excellent, or close). The 27 articles with the lowest scores were mostly accused of being weak, although the topic (but not the article) was described as controversial in five cases (e.g., about hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19).

In a follow-up investigation, 61 claims were extracted from retracted articles from the set, and ChatGPT 4o-mini was asked 10 times whether each was true. It gave a definitive yes or a positive response two-thirds of the time, including for at least one statement that had been shown to be false over a decade ago.

The results therefore emphasise, from an academic knowledge perspective, the importance of verifying information from LLMs when using them for information seeking or analysis.

URL : Does ChatGPT Ignore Article Retractions and Other Reliability Concerns?

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2018