Need for universal acceptance of preprinting by editors of journals of health professional education | SpringerLink

“While publishers in multiple fields are adopting preprints [2], we have discovered a great deal of confusion about the pros and cons of preprinting as well as disparity in publishers’ policies regarding preprinting in health professions education (HPE). In seeking to resolve this confusion, we documented preprint policies at 74 journals within HPE (e.g. nursing, medicine, pharmacy, dentistry, rehabilitation sciences, nutrition). We culled preprint policies for 43 (58%) journals using journal websites, JISC’s Sherpa Romeo tool, and Wikipedia’s list of academic publishers by preprint policy. We then obtained information from email solicitations for an additional 27 (36%), leaving us without information for 4 (5%). Of the 70 journals for which we have information, 53 (76%) will review/accept preprinted manuscripts; 11 (16%) do not, and 6 (9%) are unclear or make decisions on a case-by-case basis. (For a link to our list of HPE journals and our understanding of their policies regarding preprinted manuscripts, see https://jahse.med.utah.edu/submission/ and select “Where to Publish”.) No wonder there is confusion.

We encourage our colleagues across the health professions to join our call to eliminate this confusion by encouraging all HPE journals to support and promote preprinting. The value of preprinting has only become more important during the COVID-19 pandemic [3]. Being able to preprint scholarship prior to formal submission enhances formative review and revision, augments the benefits of peer coaching, and promotes higher quality publications. Preprinting also makes work available to others more quickly, which can enhance collaboration and uptake of new ideas without compromising the eventual copyright of the final published product.”

Webinar Report: An introduction to open science | Inside eLife | eLife

“On April 12, 2022, our eLife Community Ambassadors and Open Science Champions heard and discussed strategies to sustainably advocate for open science (OS), as well as greater integrity and equity in research.

The aim of the webinar was to introduce OS to this global group of more than 300 early-career researchers (ECRs), as well as to discuss different ways of practising OS and how to overcome the barriers to adopting these – all under the guidance of our experienced panel of open science advocates. With our Community Ambassadors programme, we want to enable each researcher to consider their role in creating a more open and inclusive global research environment, and to facilitate a space and community for all those interested to voice any questions about or ideas for promoting OS practices in their local research communities….”

SocArXiv Papers | Targeted, actionable and fair: reviewer reports as feedback and its effect on ECR career choices

Abstract:  Previous studies of the use of peer review for the allocation of competitive funding agencies have concentrated on questions of efficiency and how to make the ‘best’ decision, by ensuring that successful applicants are also the more productive or visible in the long term. This paper examines the function of peer review by examining how it can be used as a participatory research governance tool by focusing on the function feedback plays in assisting in the development of ECR applicants. Using a combination of survey, interviews and linguistic-based coding of reviewer reports, this study explores how reviewer reports provided to unsuccessful applicants as an artefact of the peer-review decision making process, can be considered as a method of feedback. Specifically, it examines which components of this feedback underpinned their decisions to re-submit their grant applications following first-failure; change their research topics or withdraw from academia entirely. Peer review feedback, we argue, sends signals to applicants to encourage them to persist (continue) or switch (not continue) even when the initial application has failed. The results lead to identification of standards of feedback for funding agencies and peer-reviewers to promote when providing reviewer feedback to applicants as part of their peer review process. The results also highlight a function of peer review overlooked by current research which is not concentrated solely on the development of an outcome, to one that can be used effectively to support the development of individuals and their future research plans.

 

Societal impact of university research in the written press: media attention in the context of SIUR and the open science agenda among social scientists in Flanders, Belgium | SpringerLink

Abstract:  Transferring scientific knowledge to non-academic audiences is an essential aspect of the open science agenda, which calls for scholars to pursue a popularization of their research. Accordingly, purposefully introducing scientific insights to the public at large is almost univocally deemed commendable. Indeed, in today’s models of research evaluation, the objects and activities considered are being extended beyond peer-reviewed journal articles to include non-scholarly popular communication. Although altmetrics offer one instrumental way to count some interactions with lay audiences, their reliance on social media makes them susceptible to manipulation, and mostly reflect circulation among niche audiences. In comparison, attention from non-scholarly media like newspapers and magazines seems a more relevant pathway to effectuate societal impact, due to its recognition in qualitative assessment tools and its broad, societal reach. Based on a case study of social scientists’ attention by newspapers and magazines in Flanders (northern Dutch-speaking region of Belgium) in 2019, this paper highlights that frequent participation in the public debate is reserved for high-status researchers only. Results show highly skewed media appearance patterns in both career position and gender, as eight male professors accounted for almost half of all 2019 media attention for social scientists. Because media attention is highly subject-dependent moreover, certain disciplines and fields offer easier pathways to popularization in media than others. Both the open science agenda and research assessment models value presence of researchers in popular media, adding written press attention to existing evaluation assessments however would disproportionately disadvantage early career researchers and exacerbate existing inequalities in academia.

 

 

Job: Preprint Community Manager | preLights

preLights is a preprint highlighting service that is centred around a community of early-career researchers. Launched in 2018, this initiative has gained significant attention from researchers as well as the publishing industry, being nominated for an ALPSP Award for Innovation in Publishing in 2019. We are now looking for the right person to join us for the next phase of community building and the site’s growth and development.

Joining an experienced and successful publishing team, this is an exciting opportunity for an enthusiastic and motivated team player to take a step into publishing or for someone already working in publishing to extend their interest in online communities.

Applicants will have relevant research experience, ideally a PhD in a field that features in preLights’ coverage. They should have a good understanding of the needs of scientists and the growing impact of preprints in biomedical research.

Opening Up to Open Science

“This way of sharing science has some benefits: peer review, for example, helps to ensure (even if it never guarantees) scientific integrity and prevent inadvertent misuse of data or code. But the status quo also comes with clear costs: it creates barriers (in the form of publication paywalls), slows the pace of innovation, and limits the impact of research. Fast science is increasingly necessary, and with good reason. Technology has not only improved the speed at which science is carried out, but many of the problems scientists study, from climate change to COVID-19, demand urgency. Whether modeling the behavior of wildfires or developing a vaccine, the need for scientists to work together and share knowledge has never been greater. In this environment, the rapid dissemination of knowledge is critical; closed, siloed knowledge slows progress to a degree society cannot afford. Imagine the consequences today if, as in the 2003 SARS disease outbreak, the task of sequencing genomes still took months and tools for labs to share the results openly online didn’t exist. Today’s challenges require scientists to adapt and better recognize, facilitate, and reward collaboration….

This tension between individual and institutional incentives and the progress of science must be recognized and resolved in a manner that contributes to solving the great challenges of today and the future. To change the culture, researchers must do more than take a pledge; they must change the game—the structures, the policies, and the criteria for success. In a word, open science must be institutionalized….

A powerful open science story can be found in the World Climate Research Programme’s Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), established in 1995. Before CMIP, with the internet in its infancy, climate model results were scattered around the world and difficult to access and use. CMIP inspired 40 modeling groups and about 1,000 researchers to collaborate on advancing modeling techniques and setting guidelines for how and where to share results openly. That simple step led to an unexpected transformation: as more people were able to access the data, the community expanded, and more groups contributed data to CMIP. More people asking questions and pointing out issues in their results helped drive improvements. In its assessment reports, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change relied on research publications using CMIP data to assess climate change. As a platform, CMIP enabled thousands of scientists to work together, self-correct their work, and create further ways to collaborate—a virtuous circle that attracted more scientists and more data, and increased the speed and usefulness of the work….

The most important message from these reports is that all parts of science, from individual researchers to universities and funding agencies, need to coordinate their efforts to ensure that early adopters aren’t jeopardizing their careers by joining the open science community. The whole enterprise has to change to truly realize the full benefits of open science. Creating this level of institutional adoption also requires updating policies, providing training, and recognizing and rewarding collaborative science….”

What senior academics can do to support reproducible and open research: a short, three-step guide | BMC Research Notes | Full Text

Abstract:  Increasingly, policies are being introduced to reward and recognise open research practices, while the adoption of such practices into research routines is being facilitated by many grassroots initiatives. However, despite this widespread endorsement and support, as well as various efforts led by early career researchers, open research is yet to be widely adopted. For open research to become the norm, initiatives should engage academics from all career stages, particularly senior academics (namely senior lecturers, readers, professors) given their routine involvement in determining the quality of research. Senior academics, however, face unique challenges in implementing policy changes and supporting grassroots initiatives. Given that—like all researchers—senior academics are motivated by self-interest, this paper lays out three feasible steps that senior academics can take to improve the quality and productivity of their research, that also serve to engender open research. These steps include changing (a) hiring criteria, (b) how scholarly outputs are credited, and (c) how we fund and publish in line with open research principles. The guidance we provide is accompanied by material for further reading.

 

 

Open Access Redefined: Survey Data and Literature Study on the Impact of Sci-Hub in Orthopaedic Research

Abstract:  Background Since Alexandra Elbanyan founded Sci-Hub in 2011, the website has been used by a growing number of researchers worldwide. Sci-Hub is a so-called shadow library or guerrilla open access format bypassing publishers’ paywalls, giving everyone free access to scientific papers. Until today, there have been no publications about usage by orthopaedic and trauma surgeons of Sci-Hub or other “pirate sites” and how it may influence their work.

Materials and Methods Orthopaedic and trauma surgeons of four university hospitals in Germany and Europe were consulted using a standardised questionnaire containing multiple items about the use and evaluation of Sci-Hub. In addition, the Medline and Cochrane databases were screened for all studies related to Sci-Hub. Two reviewers independently reviewed all articles and the references of these articles.

Results Of all orthopaedic surgeons consulted, 69% knew of Sci-Hub and 66.7% used it on a regular basis. Of the younger participants (< 45 years old), 77% knew the webpage, while only 25% of older participants (> 45 years old) knew the webpage. Ninety percent found the quality of their citation and research had been enhanced since using Sci-Hub. On a scale of 1 to 10, user-friendliness was rated with a mean rating of 7.58 (95% CI: 7.262–7.891). Ethical or legal concerns among users seem mixed. On a scale of 1 (no concerns) to 5 (many concerns), the mean score was 2.39 (95% CI: 2.154–2.615). Of doctors using Sci-Hub, 89% would recommend it to other colleagues.

Conclusion The quality and number of articles in Sci-Hub is outstanding, and the rate of young researchers using the website is high. The most important shift in literature research for decades is a phenomenon mostly used by young researchers and is not the subject of current research itself. Sci-Hub may have already changed how orthopaedic research works.

Gender Equality in Open Scholarship – Library Conferences – Research Guides at United Nations Dag Hammarskjöld Library

“Exploring one of the key themes highlighted at the DHL-DESA 2nd Global Open Science Conference, this virtual dialogue among early career researchers will focus on gender equality in the Open Science suite of activities. Panelists will share their experiences and knowledge surrounding open science, feminism and gender parity mainstreaming, discuss barriers to early-career researchers’ success relevant to gender and the related power dynamics, aiming to identify methods that open science can benefit from feminist epistemology, strengthen young career researchers and activist’s position in their striving to push for open scholarship.”

What senior academics can do to support reproducible and open research: a short, three-step guide

Abstract:  Increasingly, policies are being introduced to reward and recognise open research practices, while the adoption of such practices into research routines is being facilitated by many grassroots initiatives. However, despite this widespread endorsement and support, as well as various efforts led by early career researchers, open research is yet to be widely adopted. For open research to become the norm, initiatives should engage academics from all career stages, particularly senior academics (namely senior lecturers, readers, professors) given their routine involvement in determining the quality of research. Senior academics, however, face unique challenges in implementing policy changes and supporting grassroots initiatives. Given that—like all researchers—senior academics are motivated by self-interest, this paper lays out three feasible steps that senior academics can take to improve the quality and productivity of their research, that also serve to engender open research. These steps include changing (a) hiring criteria, (b) how scholarly outputs are credited, and (c) how we fund and publish in line with open research principles. The guidance we provide is accompanied by material for further reading.

Dissertating in Public | hc:45003 | Humanities CORE

Abstract:  Kathleen Fitzpatrick analyses the sudden isolation graduate students find themselves in during the dissertation process. In the humanities, she observes, graduate students are regularly habituated into an anxiety of intellectual independence whereby sharing ideas, collaboration and publishing work in progress is to be considered suspect and potentially diminishing scholarly value. Digital scholarship, she argues, can eliminate or at least sideline such anxieties (and their untimeliness) by creating a participating public, testing ideas, interesting possible publishers early and creating a community of scholarship that, together with the support of PhD-granting institutions, endorses ‘new kinds of open work’.

Friesike et al. (2022) Striving for Societal Impact as an Early-career Researcher: Reflections on Five Common Concerns | Emerald Insight

Friesike, S., Dobusch, L. and Heimstädt, M. (2022), “Striving for Societal Impact as an Early-career Researcher: Reflections on Five Common Concerns”, Gümüsay, A.A., Marti, E., Trittin-Ulbrich, H. and Wickert, C. (Ed.) Organizing for Societal Grand Challenges (Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 79), Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 239-255. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X20220000079022

Abstract

Many early-career researchers (ECR) are motivated by the prospect of creating knowledge that is useful, not just within but also beyond the academic community. Although research facilities, funders and academic journals praise this eagerness for societal impact, the path toward such contributions is by no means straightforward. In this essay, we address five common concerns faced by ECRs when they strive for societal impact. We discuss the opportunity costs associated with impact work, the fuzziness of current impact measurement, the challenge of incremental results, the actionability of research findings, and the risk of saying something wrong in public. We reflect on these concerns in light of our own experience with impact work and conclude by suggesting a “post-heroic” perspective on impact, whereby seemingly mundane activities are linked in a meaningful way.

Global Thinking. ON-MERRIT recommendations for maximising equity in open and responsible research | Zenodo

“Open and responsible research has the potential to profoundly alter the who, what, why, when and how of knowledge-creation. Yet it is not a destiny. The ways we implement change today will have long-lasting consequences for the kind of open and responsible research ecosystem we inhabit tomorrow. For that future to be one more equitable than today’s world, critical consideration must be given to the ways in which agendas of openness are shaped by those in positions of power and privilege, and might hence reflect or even reinforce global dynamics of inequity. 

ON-MERRIT is an EC-funded project to investigate dynamics of cumulative advantage and threats to equity in the transition to Open Research and Responsible Research & Innovation (RRI) across a range of stakeholder categories (in particular for those at the periphery) and multiple dimensions of Open Research, as well as its interfaces with industry and policy. Our results found many areas of concern, from which we identified four key areas of risk:

Resource-intensity of Open Research: Putting open and responsible research into practice requires considerable resources (including infrastructures, services, and training). The structural inequalities that exist within institutions, regions and nations, and on a global scale, create structural advantages for well-resourced actors and structural disadvantages for less-resourced actors, in terms of capacity and ability to engage in these practices.
Article-processing charges and the stratification of Open Access publishing: The article processing charge (APC)  model within Open Access publishing seems to discriminate against those with limited resources (especially those from less-resourced regions and institutions). These facts seem to be having effects of stratification in terms of who publishes where. 
Societal inclusion in research and policy-making: Open and responsible research processes take place within broader social systems where inequalities continue to structure access and privilege certain actors while others are disadvantaged. Despite laudable aims of equity, inclusion and diversity in open and responsible research, the most marginalised, vulnerable, and poor remain mostly excluded. 
Reform of reward and recognition: Institutional processes for reward and recognition not only do not sufficiently support the uptake of open and responsible research, but often get in the way of them. This disadvantages those who wish to take up these practices (putting early-career researchers especially at risk). …”

Statement on APC.pdf – Google Drive

“In the midst of this complex scenario, we believe that the international community should assume the challenge of exercising multilateral governance and academic cooperation in the face of the inequities that arise from this new OA publication model. To that end, the signing global organizations promote the creation of an ad hoc worldwide committee (Global Initiative for Equitable OA Models), working under the umbrella of multilateral global academic institutions or similar bodies. The Committee aspires to:

1. Establish a fluid dialogue between the various members of the scientific community, policy makers and representatives from governments, to further discuss options and implement joint actions for an equitable model of OA for the global scientific community.

2. Draft a global agreement aimed at enforcing equitable access to publishing in OA Journals moving away from Author Pays OA and toward models that either a) repurpose existing subscription funds to fund e.g. sponsored OA or b) subscribe-to-open OA; or obtain funding for academic publishing from institutions or other public sources (diamond/platinum OA). Regulation should include guidelines aimed at setting copyrights.

3. Create a global economic containment network to financially support the least developing countries and scientifically lagging countries in order to strengthen national scientific R&D systems in line with objectives previously established by the countries at the multilateral level, such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs).

4. Set up a network of existing or new diamond journals from developing countries, aimed at promoting non commercial open publishing practices with clear and transparent regulations and strong standardized peer review processes. This can lead to new prestigious and recognized options where scientific communication will prevail over the interests from the publishing industry.”