Archives des mots-clés : scientific practices

To Preprint or Not to Preprint: Experience and Attitudes of Researchers Worldwide

Posté le par

Authors : Rong Ni, Ludo Waltman

The pandemic has underlined the significance of open science and spurred further growth of preprinting. Nevertheless, preprinting has been adopted at varying rates across different countries/regions.

To investigate researchers’ experience with and attitudes toward preprinting, we conducted a survey of authors of research papers published in 2021 or 2022. We find that respondents in the US and Europe had a higher level of familiarity with and adoption of preprinting than those in China and the rest of the world. Respondents in China were most worried about the lack of recognition for preprinting and the risk of getting scooped.

US respondents were very concerned about premature media coverage of preprints, the reliability and credibility of preprints, and public sharing of information before peer review. Respondents identified integration of preprinting in journal submission processes as the most important way to promote preprinting.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.55835/6442f782b2b5580ba561406b

NSF Fellows’ perceptions about incentives, research misconduct, and scientific integrity in STEM academia

Posté le par

Authors : Siddhartha Roy, Marc A. Edwards

There is increased concern about perverse incentives, quantitative performance metrics, and hyper-competition for funding and faculty positions in US academia.

Recipients of the prestigious National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowships (n = 244) from Civil and Environmental Engineering (45.5%) and Computer Science and Engineering (54.5%) were anonymously surveyed to create a baseline snapshot of their perceptions, behaviors and experiences. NSF Fellows ranked scientific advancement as the top metric for evaluating academics followed by publishing in high-impact journals, social impact of research, and publication/citation counts.

The self-reported rate of academic cheating was 16.7% and of research misconduct was 3.7%. Thirty-one percent of fellows reported direct knowledge of graduate peers cheating, and 11.9% had knowledge of research misconduct by colleagues. Only 30.7% said they would report suspected misconduct.

A majority of fellows (55.3%) felt that mandatory ethics trainings left them unprepared for dealing with ethical issues. Fellows stated academic freedom, flexible schedules and opportunity to mentor students were the most positive aspects of academia, whereas pressures for funding, publication, and tenure were cited as the most negative aspects.

These data may be useful in considering how to better prepare STEM graduate trainees for academic careers.

URL : NSF Fellows’ perceptions about incentives, research misconduct, and scientific integrity in STEM academia

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-32445-3

Attitudes Toward Providing Open Access for Use of Biospecimens and Health Records: A Cross-Sectional Study from Jordan

Posté le par

Authors : Kamal M Al-Shami, Wesam S Ahmed, Karem H Alzoubi

Purpose

Biospecimen repositories and big data generated from clinical research are critically important in advancing patient-centered healthcare. However, ethical considerations arising from reusing clinical samples and health records for subsequent research pose a hurdle for big-data health research. This study aims to assess the public’s opinions in Jordan toward providing blanket consent for using biospecimens and health records in research.

Participants and Methods

A cross-sectional study utilizing a self-reported questionnaire was carried out in different cities in Jordan, targeting adult participants. Outcome variables included awareness of clinical research, participation in clinical research, and opinions toward providing open access to clinical samples and records for research purposes.

Descriptive analysis was utilized for reporting the outcome as frequency (percentages) out of the total responses. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression were used to investigate the association between independent variables and the outcome of interest.

Results

A total of 1033 eligible participants completed the questionnaire. Although the majority (90%) were aware of clinical research, only 24% have ever participated in this type of research. About half (51%) agreed on providing blanket consent for the use of clinical samples, while a lower percentage (43%) agreed on providing open access to their health records.

Privacy concerns and lack of trust in the researcher were cited as major barriers to providing blanket consent. Participation in clinical research and having health insurance were predictors for providing open access to clinical samples and records.

Conclusion

The lack of public trust in Jordan toward data privacy is evident from this study. Therefore, a governance framework is needed to raise and maintain the public’s trust in big-data research that warrants the future reuse of clinical samples and records. As such, the current study provides valuable insights that will inform the design of effective consent protocols required in data-intensive health research.

URL : Attitudes Toward Providing Open Access for Use of Biospecimens and Health Records: A Cross-Sectional Study from Jordan

DOI : https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S402769

Transparency in conducting and reporting research: A survey of authors, reviewers, and editors across scholarly disciplines

Posté le par

Authors : Mario Malički, IJsbrand Jan Aalbersberg, Lex Bouter, Adrian Mulligan, Gerben ter Riet

Calls have been made for improving transparency in conducting and reporting research, improving work climates, and preventing detrimental research practices. To assess attitudes and practices regarding these topics, we sent a survey to authors, reviewers, and editors. We received 3,659 (4.9%) responses out of 74,749 delivered emails.

We found no significant differences between authors’, reviewers’, and editors’ attitudes towards transparency in conducting and reporting research, or towards their perceptions of work climates. Undeserved authorship was perceived by all groups as the most prevalent detrimental research practice, while fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and not citing prior relevant research, were seen as more prevalent by editors than authors or reviewers.

Overall, 20% of respondents admitted sacrificing the quality of their publications for quantity, and 14% reported that funders interfered in their study design or reporting. While survey respondents came from 126 different countries, due to the survey’s overall low response rate our results might not necessarily be generalizable.

Nevertheless, results indicate that greater involvement of all stakeholders is needed to align actual practices with current recommendations.

URL : Transparency in conducting and reporting research: A survey of authors, reviewers, and editors across scholarly disciplines

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270054

The pandemic and changes in early career researchers’ career prospects, research and publishing practices

Posté le par

Authors : Hamid R. Jamali, David Nicholas, David Sims, Anthony Watkinson, Eti Herman, Cherifa Boukacem-Zeghmouri, Blanca Rodrıguez-Bravo, Marzena Świgoń, Abdullah Abrizah, Jie Xu, Carol Tenopir , Suzie Allard

Introduction

As part of the Harbnger-2 project, this study aimed to discover the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on junior researchers’ work-life, career prospects, research and publishing practices and networking.

Methods

An online international survey of 800 early career researchers (ECRs) was conducted in 2022. A questionnaire was developed based on three rounds of interviews and distributed using multiple channels including publishers, social media, and direct email to ECRs.

Results

The impact of the pandemic on career prospects, morale, job security, productivity, ability to network and collaborate, and quality and speed of peer review has on the whole been more negative than positive.

A quarter of ECRs shifted their research focus to pandemic-related topics and half of those who did, benefited largely due to increased productivity and impact. The majority worked remotely/from home and more than two-thirds of those who did so benefitted from it. While virtual or hybrid conferences have been embraced by the majority of ECRs, around a third still preferred face-to-face only conferences.

The use of library online platforms, Sci-Hub, ResearchGate, Google Scholar and smartphone to search and access full-text papers increased. ECRs prioritised journals with fast submission procedures for the publishing of their papers and spent more time on increasing the visibility of their research. Fees were a problem for publishing open access.

Conclusion

Although, generally, the pandemic negatively impacted many aspects of ECRs’ work-life, certain research areas and individuals benefited from being more appreciated and valued, and, in some cases, resulted in increased resources, better productivity and greater impact.

Changes, such as the use of digital technologies and remote working created new opportunities for some ECRs. While continuing work flexibility and hybrid conferences might benefit some ECRs, institutions should also take measures to help those ECRs whose career and productivity have been adversely impacted.

URL : The pandemic and changes in early career researchers’ career prospects, research and publishing practices

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281058

The Preprint Club – A cross-institutional, community-based approach to peer reviewing

Posté le par

Authors : Felix Clemens Richter, Ester Gea-Mallorquí, Nicolas Ruffin, Nicolas Vabret

The academic community has been increasingly using preprints to disseminate their latest research findings quickly and openly. This early and open access of non-peer reviewed research warrants new means from the scientific community to efficiently assess and provide feedback to preprints. Yet, most peer review of scientific studies performed today are still managed by journals, each having their own peer review policy and transparency.

However, approaches to uncouple the peer review process from journal publication are emerging. Additionally, formal education of early career researchers (ECRs) in peer reviewing is rarely available, hampering the quality of peer review feedback.

Here, we introduce the Preprint Club, a cross-institutional, community-based approach to peer reviewing, founded by ECRs from the University of Oxford, Karolinska Institutet and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

Over the past two years and using the collaborative setting of the Preprint Club, we have been discussing, assessing, and providing feedback on recent preprints in the field of immunology.

In this article, we provide a blueprint of the Preprint Club basic structure, demonstrate its effectiveness, and detail the lessons we learned on its impact on peer review training and preprint author’s perception.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.01.04.522570

Objectifs et stratégies de publication d’un bulletin de liaison : Le Médiéviste et l’Ordinateur (1979-1989)

Posté le par

Auteur/Author : Edgar Lejeune

En 1979, un petit groupe de spécialistes d’histoire médiévale utilisateurs des ordinateurs lance une publication d’un genre nouveau : le bulletin de liaison Le Médiéviste et l’Ordinateur.

Leur objectif est alors de « créer un réseau » permettant d’échanger des informations sur les nouvelles pratiques de recherche assistée par ordinateur qui se développent dans leur discipline depuis la fin des années 1960.

Cet article propose une analyse des stratégies de publication mises en place par les membres du comité de rédaction du Médiéviste et l’Ordinateur, dans le but d’observer comment une « culture commune » peut se construire en humanités numériques sur la base d’un périodique.

Pour ce faire, nous regarderons dans un premier temps, à partir des archives du comité de rédaction du bulletin conservées à l’Institut de recherche et d’histoire des textes (IRHT), comment cette publication est organisée, depuis le choix des auteurs jusqu’à la distribution des exemplaires.

Nous analyserons ensuite comment, dans les pages du bulletin, les éditeurs mettent en place des stratégies de communication permettant de rendre accessibles des contenus « techniques » à l’ensemble du lectorat visé.

URL : Objectifs et stratégies de publication d’un bulletin de liaison : Le Médiéviste et l’Ordinateur (1979-1989)

DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/revuehn.3087