Archives des mots-clés : scientific communication

Honest signaling in academic publishing

Posté le par

Authors : Leonid Tiokhin, Karthik Panchanathan, Daniel Lakens, Simine Vazire, Thomas Morgan, Kevin Zollman

Academic journals provide a key quality-control mechanism in science. Yet, information asymmetries and conflicts of interests incentivize scientists to deceive journals about the quality of their research.

How can honesty be ensured, despite incentives for deception? Here, we address this question by applying the theory of honest signaling to the publication process. Our models demonstrate that several mechanisms can ensure honest journal submission, including differential benefits, differential costs, and costs to resubmitting rejected papers.

Without submission costs, scientists benefit from submitting all papers to high-ranking journals, unless papers can only be submitted a limited number of times. Counterintuitively, our analysis implies that inefficiencies in academic publishing (e.g., arbitrary formatting requirements, long review times) can serve a function by disincentivizing scientists from submitting low-quality work to high-ranking journals.

Our models provide simple, powerful tools for understanding how to promote honest paper submission in academic publishing.

URL : Honest signaling in academic publishing

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246675

Preprints in Chemistry: An Exploratory Analysis of Differences with Journal Articles

Posté le par

Author : Mario Pagliaro

The exploratory analysis of the differences between preprints and the corresponding peer reviewed journal articles for ten studies first published on ChemRxiv and on Preprints, though statistically non-significant, suggests outcomes of relevance for chemistry researchers and educators.

The full transition to open science requires new education of doctoral students and young researchers on scholarly communication in the digital age.

The preliminary findings of this study will contribute to inform the curriculum of the aforementioned new courses for young chemists, eventually promoting accelerated innovation in a science that, unique amid all basic sciences, originates a huge industry central to the wealth of nations.

URL : Preprints in Chemistry: An Exploratory Analysis of Differences with Journal Articles

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9010005

Tracing the context in disciplinary classifications: A bibliometric pairwise comparison of five classifications of journals in the social sciences and humanities

Posté le par

Authors : Linda Sīle, Raf Guns, Frédéric Vandermoere, Gunnar Sivertsen, Tim C. E. Engels

Despite the centrality of disciplinary classifications in bibliometric analyses, it is not well known how the choice of disciplinary classification influences bibliometric representations of research in the social sciences and humanities (SSH).

This is especially crucial when using data from national databases. Therefore, we examine the differences in the disciplinary profile of an article along with the absolute and relative number of articles across disciplines using five disciplinary classifications for journals. We use data on journal articles (2006–2015) from the national bibliographic databases VABB-SHW in Flanders (Belgium) and Cristin in Norway.

Our study is based on pairwise comparisons of the local classifications used in these databases, the Web of Science subject categories, the Science-Metrix, and the ERIH PLUS journal classifications.

For comparability, all classifications are mapped to the OECD Fields of Research and Development classification. The findings show that the choice of disciplinary classification can lead to over- or underestimation of the absolute number of publications per discipline.

In contrast, if the focus is on the relative numbers, the choice of classification has practically no influence. These findings facilitate an informed choice of a disciplinary classification for journals in SSH when using data from national databases.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00110

OAI-PMH à « l’heure du web sémantique » : bilans et perspectives

Posté le par

Auteur/Author : Vincent de Lavenne de la Montoise

À l’approche du vingtième anniversaire du protocole OAI-PMH, et dans un environnement web qui a subi de profondes évolutions (technologiques et d’usages), quelle est l’actualité de l’échange de données ? Comment se sont construits les usages des professionnel le s en la matière ? Sont ils adaptés aux défis actuels ?

Ce travail se propose d’analyser l’exposition et l’échange de données sous un angle historique, avant d’essayer de comprendre les enjeux actuels qui détermineront quelle(s) solution(s) techniques choisir.

URL : OAI-PMH à « l’heure du web sémantique » : bilans et perspectives

Original location : https://www.enssib.fr/bibliotheque-numerique/documents/69909-oai-pmh-a-l-heure-du-web-semantique.pdf

Preprints in motion: tracking changes between posting and journal publication

Posté le par

Authors : Jessica K Polka, Gautam Dey, Máté Pálfy, Federico Nanni, Liam Brierley, Nicholas Fraser, Jonathon Alexis Coates

Amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, preprints in the biomedical sciences are being posted and accessed at unprecedented rates, drawing widespread attention from the general public, press and policymakers for the first time.

This phenomenon has sharpened longstanding questions about the reliability of information shared prior to journal peer review. Does the information shared in preprints typically withstand the scrutiny of peer review, or are conclusions likely to change in the version of record?

We assessed preprints that had been posted and subsequently published in a journal between 1st January and 30th April 2020, representing the initial phase of the pandemic response. We utilised a combination of automatic and manual annotations to quantify how an article changed between the preprinted and published version.

We found that the total number of figure panels and tables changed little between preprint and published articles. Moreover, the conclusions of 6% of non-COVID-19-related and 15% of COVID-19-related abstracts undergo a discrete change by the time of publication, but the majority of these changes do not reverse the main message of the paper.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.20.432090

Publishing at any cost: a cross-sectional study of the amount that medical researchers spend on open access publishing each year

Posté le par

Authors : Mallory K. Ellingson, Xiaoting Shi, Joshua J. Skydel, Kate Nyhan,Richard Lehman, Joseph S. Ross, Joshua D. Wallach

Objective

To estimate the financial costs paid by individual medical researchers from meeting the article processing charges (APCs) levied by open access journals in 2019.

Design

Cross-sectional analysis.

Data sources

Scopus was used to generate two random samples of researchers, the first with a senior author article indexed in the ‘Medicine’ subject area (general researchers) and the second with an article published in the ten highest-impact factor general clinical medicine journals (high-impact researchers) in 2019.

For each researcher, Scopus was used to identify all first and senior author original research or review articles published in 2019. Data were obtained from Scopus, institutional profiles, Journal Citation Reports, publisher databases, the Directory of Open Access Journals, and individual journal websites.

Main outcome measures

Median APCs paid by general and high-impact researchers for all first and senior author research and review articles published in 2019.

Results

There were 241 general and 246 high-impact researchers identified as eligible for our study. In 2019, the general and high-impact researchers published a total of 914 (median 2, IQR 1–5) and 1471 (4, 2–8) first or senior author research or review articles, respectively. 42% (384/914) of the articles from the general researchers and 29% (428/1471) of the articles from the high-impact medical researchers were published in fully open access journals.

The median total APCs paid by general researchers in 2019 was US$191 (US$0–US$2500) and the median total paid by high-impact researchers was US$2900 (US$0–US$5465); the maximum paid by a single researcher in total APCs was US$30115 and US$34676, respectively.

Conclusions

Medical researchers in 2019 were found to have paid between US$0 and US$34676 in total APCs. As journals with APCs become more common, it is important to continue to evaluate the potential cost to researchers, especially on individuals who may not have the funding or institutional resources to cover these costs.

URL : Publishing at any cost: a cross-sectional study of the amount that medical researchers spend on open access publishing each year

DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047107

Methodological quality of COVID-19 clinical research

Posté le par

Authors : Richard G. Jung, Pietro Di Santo, Cole Clifford, Graeme Prosperi-Porta, Stephanie Skanes, Annie Hung, Simon Parlow, Sarah Visintini, F. Daniel Ramirez, Trevor Simard & Benjamin Hibbert

The COVID-19 pandemic began in early 2020 with major health consequences. While a need to disseminate information to the medical community and general public was paramount, concerns have been raised regarding the scientific rigor in published reports.

We performed a systematic review to evaluate the methodological quality of currently available COVID-19 studies compared to historical controls. A total of 9895 titles and abstracts were screened and 686 COVID-19 articles were included in the final analysis.

Comparative analysis of COVID-19 to historical articles reveals a shorter time to acceptance (13.0[IQR, 5.0–25.0] days vs. 110.0[IQR, 71.0–156.0] days in COVID-19 and control articles, respectively; p < 0.0001).

Furthermore, methodological quality scores are lower in COVID-19 articles across all study designs. COVID-19 clinical studies have a shorter time to publication and have lower methodological quality scores than control studies in the same journal. These studies should be revisited with the emergence of stronger evidence.

URL : Methodological quality of COVID-19 clinical research

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-21220-5