“Institutional and subject repositories are excellent locations to make research outputs publicly accessible. Researchers can share their research with the public through a variety of alternative dissemination mechanisms, including Research Gate, Academia.edu and others. One of the best effective techniques to boost a research paper’s visibility and number of citations is through open-access (OA) publication, because it makes the study publicly accessible from the very beginning. Researchers can boost their visibility, preserve their work and make it available for use in the future by making all of their outputs publicly accessible. Ogunleye (2019) made a study on “Some determinants of visibility boost for research publications among early career educational researchers in southwest, Nigeria”. In this study, he described that the early career of educational researchers in Southwest Nigeria looked into some determinants (shared reference databases, research profiles, publishing in OA, self-archiving, publication metadata, researcher profiles and social media platforms) for boosting visibility of the publication. A structured questionnaire on factors determining publication boost (r = 0.81) was utilised to collect data, and multiple regression analysis and the Pearson’s correlation approach were employed to evaluate the data. A significant positive correlation between each of the following was discovered in the results: joint reference databases (r = 0.17), Publication metadata (r = 0.23), result profiles (r = 0.44), open-access publishing (r = 0.27), self-archiving (r = 0.52), social media networks (r = 0.43) and accessibility of published work are all positively correlated with each other. The six variables had a positive correlation with the publication visibility (R = 0.60), and they were responsible for 32.9% of the gains invisibility of early career researchers’ publications. Norman (2012) conducted a research on “Maximizing Journal Article Citation Online: Readers, Robots, and Research Visibility”. Then he explained that online academic publications with peer review provide numerous advantages for researchers. They can enhance an article’s popularity and publicity, connect someone’s research to the relevant web of existing literature rapidly and add other scholars’ attention who will use it, increasing the likelihood of it being used. Also provided five basic areas to make the literature more popular which are choosing a search engine-friendly title, writing of abstracts and introductions, making the article easy to find, using of media and links, dissemination of articles after publication and emphasised on increasing a piece of content’s prospects of future downloads, citations and visibility.”
The study aims to investigate the utilisation of open research data repositories (RDRs) for storing and sharing research data in higher learning institutions (HLIs) in Tanzania.
A survey research design was employed to collect data from postgraduate students at the Nelson Mandela African Institution of Science and Technology (NM-AIST) in Arusha, Tanzania. The data were collected and analysed quantitatively and qualitatively. A census sampling technique was employed to select the sample size for this study. The quantitative data were analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), whilst the qualitative data were analysed thematically.
Less than half of the respondents were aware of and were using open RDRs, including Zenodo, DataVerse, Dryad, OMERO, GitHub and Mendeley data repositories. More than half of the respondents were not willing to share research data and cited a lack of ownership after storing their research data in most of the open RDRs and data security. HILs need to conduct training on using trusted repositories and motivate postgraduate students to utilise open repositories (ORs). The challenges for underutilisation of open RDRs were a lack of policies governing the storage and sharing of research data and grant constraints.
Research data storage and sharing are of great interest to researchers in HILs to inform them to implement open RDRs to support these researchers. Open RDRs increase visibility within HILs and reduce research data loss, and research works will be cited and used publicly. This paper identifies the potential for additional studies focussed on this area.
Abstract: This study analyzes the publication requirements of PhD programs in China. It is based on a representative sample of PhD programs from 164 Chinese universities from all fields of science. Our results show that Chinese PhD student significant pressures to publish in order to obtain their degree, with papers indexed in the Science Citation Index often a mandatory requirement for students to obtain their degree. Moreover, it is found that first authorship is also mandatory: only as first authors count towards the degree, which may affect PhD students’ collaborative behavior. These findings highlight the role of publications indexed in the Science Citation Index for China’s PhD programs and contributes to our understanding of the landscape of research evaluation in China’s higher education system.
“Open access publishing is often presented as a monolith, but there are a variety of approaches to making your work available open access. Defined by Peter Suber as “digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions,” open access initiatives and models have emerged since the movement gained momentum at the beginning of the twenty-first century (Open Access, 2012, 4).
Participants will explore open access publishing to better understand its principles and practices. Facilitators will share campus resources to support a variety of open access publishing models, including institutional funding for open access publishing charges, green open access via deposit in the institutional repository (ISU ReD), and transformative agreements offered by Milner Library. Finally, participants will engage in a discussion focused on ways to increase engagement with and impact of their scholarly work via open access….”
Abstract: Peer review is considered by many to be a fundamental component of scientific publishing. In this context, open peer review (OPR) has gained popularity in recent years as a tool to increase transparency, rigor, and inclusivity in research. But how does OPR really affect the review process? How does OPR impact specific groups, such as early career researchers? This editorial explores and discusses these aspects as well as some suggested actions for journals.
“The rise of predatory journals has been facilitated by an increasing worldwide emphasis on using bibliometric criteria to evaluate academic productivity. Moreover, the growing number of potential authors has notably intensified the competition to publish. For young researchers, career advancement, including their eligibility for academic positions, is now contingent on their performance according to a few bibliometric indicators. Faced with this productivity pressure (the “publish or perish” model), despite limited publication funds, unsuspecting early-career researchers may perceive low-quality open-access (meaning “pay-to-publish”) journals as more viable alternatives to the reputable periodicals where they would compete with more experienced peers from well-established institutions.
Predatory publishing impacts both current and future generations of scientists. A model in which researchers must pay to publish in the early stages of their academic careers represents a shortcoming of career training for scientists, if not a failure. Thus, in addition to being financially manipulative, predatory publishing may influence how researchers behave in relation to scientific communication….
This is the context in which predatory journals swoop in to seize their prey. They lure victims with promises of lower publication fees, faster processing times, and a less demanding peer review process. Some researchers willingly participate in the system, and some are unknowingly scammed, but in either case, the ultimate goal of successful publication in a foreign journal is attained….”
“The Socio-Environmental Knowledge Commons (SEEKCommons) project is dedicated to building pathways for horizontal collaborations across Science and Technology Studies (STS), Open Science (OS), and socio-environmental researchers and community organizers.
The SEEKCommons Fellowship is an initiative to bring graduate students and early-career researchers with new perspectives and voices to socio-environmental research with open technologies. Our program is designed to:
Encourage new integrative practices involving environmental and climate action research with OS practices; and
Provide a space for fellows and network members to connect on research issues, challenges, and solutions.
We are seeking 9 fellows for the inaugural 2024 SEEKCommons Fellowship….”
Abstract: Science plays a pivotal role in the advancement of democratic societies, and there is a growing consensus advocating for its recognition as both a common good and a fundamental human right. To effectively fulfil this role, science necessitates the trust of society, the support of policy makers, and robust international collaboration, enabling the mobility of researchers and the free flow of knowledge. To encourage this, our responsibilities as researchers extend beyond the realm of academic publishing. They encompass science outreach, education, diplomacy, policy advocacy, entrepreneurship, and collaborations aimed at addressing global challenges or progress towards more equitable societies. However, this is hampered by current research assessment practices and the academic reward system, which perpetuate a ‘publish or perish’ research culture that confines the scope of science to academic publishing, fosters privilege-based biases, and prioritises quantity over quality, as well as prestige over integrity. During this talk, I will share my personal journey as an early career researcher from the Global South, now affiliated with one of the most innovative research labs worldwide. My research journey, which was enabled by securing highly competitive funding since early stages of my career, provided me with first-hand insight into the biases and repercussions of current research assessment practices on the trajectories of researchers. Further validating this perspective is a ground-breaking study I co-led with colleagues from the Global Young Academy, exploring research assessment for career advancement on a global scale. This study shows that research institutions worldwide heavily rely on bibliometrics to evaluate career progression, irrespective of the academic discipline. However, while more established institutions appear to be walking away from these practices, these are becoming more popular in emerging research institutions from low-middle income countries. These findings highlight the need for transformational global (inclusive) initiatives. I am privileged to be part of one such initiative – The Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA). CoARA brings together a community of researchers and research enablers dedicated to reforming this perilous research culture. CoARA’s guiding principles centre on acknowledging the diversity of contributions and careers in science, shifting research evaluation towards qualitative aspects where research ethics and integrity are at the core, and recognizing that excellence is context-dependent, varying for each candidate, role, and projects. A standout feature of CoARA is its unwavering commitment to early career researchers, placing them at the heart of its principles, governance, structures, and interventions. Thus, ensuring that future generation of scientific leaders is well-equipped to navigate and transform the landscape of research assessment and scientific culture.
“UK guide to Open Science for PhD students, based on the original French version produced by the French Ministry of Higher Education and Research….”
Abstract: The Harbingers project, which studied the working lives and scholarly communication behaviour of early career researchers (ECRs) over 6 years, found evidence of changing attitudes to questionable (grey) publishing. Thus, whilst predatory publishers have come to be treated with equanimity, as a problem easily dealt with, there was growing concern with the high volume of low-grade research being generated, some of which by ‘grey’ open access publishers for want of a better name (questionable and non-standard have also been used). With the recent announcement (2023) that the government of Malaysia (a Harbinger case country) is not providing Article Processing Charges (APCs) for articles published by MDPI, Frontiers and Hindawi on quality and cost grounds, we set out to see what lay behind this decision and whether other countries exhibited similar concerns. Information was obtained by asking Harbinger country leads, mostly embedded in research universities, from Australia, China, France, Israel, Malaysia, Poland, Spain, UK, and the US to conduct desk research to establish what is happening. It was found that countries, like ECRs, appear to have formed into two different camps, with China, Poland, France, and Spain joining Malaysia in the camp of those who felt concerned about these publishers and the UK, US, Israel, and Australia belonging to the camp of the unconcerned. Explanations for the split are furnished and whether the Malaysian position will prevail elsewhere is considered. Finally, in this paper, we have aired issues/concerns, rather than provided robust, systematic data. For a systematic study we shall have to wait for the fuller study we are hoping to conduct.
Abstract: Investigates whether junior researchers believe that the scholarly communication system is changing in a significant way, whether they have contributed to the changes they envisaged, whether the pandemic has fast-forwarded change and what they thought a transformed system might look like. The data are drawn from the Harbingers-2 project, which investigated the impact of the pandemic on the scholarly communications attitudes and behaviours of early career researchers (ECRs), employing repeat interviewing with around 170 science and social science junior researchers from eight countries. The article focuses on the findings of the last of three rounds of interviews, with comparisons made with the first round, held 18?months earlier, when the pandemic was most active. A majority of ECRs thought that there had been significant changes in the scholarly system, and a large minority thought that the pandemic was responsible. Most of them wanted a system that was more open in terms of open access and open data, with a third taking personal action to bring about change.
“In-group discussions that followed brought to light several observations on challenges and opportunities in the current publishing system:
Open peer review can be advantageous, particularly when the contents of the reviewer reports are made public while respecting the privacy of reviewers’ identities due to potential conflict of interest. This approach helps distribute the reviewing workload and allows experts to review papers within their specific areas of expertise.
The practice of preprint publishing is subject-specific: in physics and mathematics, it is customary to publish the preprints beforehand to invite comments and suggestions, but in applied areas such as agriculture, biomedical, or other fundamental areas like chemistry and biology, sharing preprints is seen as risky due to potential scooping.
Preprints are not considered for promotions, funding, and appraisal. However, preprints usher productivity in some situations as this is a medium of quick dissemination of information among peers.
At the same time, the papers already available in the public domain may face challenges in getting accepted in a journal. The journals that run on subscription models may have severe reservations about publishing preprinted work.
Misconduct regarding reviewing should also be considered, as anybody can post harsh or biased comments, which might affect the spirit and zeal of many early-career researchers.
Suggestions to popularize preprint services include uploading preprints only when the manuscript is ready for publication and promoting the concept of overlay journals. We must encourage young researchers to adopt innovative publication methods and foster collaborations with scholars worldwide to implement new publishing systems.
In the context of India, the new University Grant Commission (UGC) guidelines allow preprints to be considered for awarding doctoral degrees. Existing policies governing the publication system need to be revised, accounting for the value of Open Access, and peer-reviewed preprints, which allow wider dissemination of research findings while maintaining rigorous peer review.
A shift towards a more inclusive and transparent publishing model can promote accessibility and accelerate the progress of scientific knowledge, but we need to address the challenges of educating the public and researchers about the limitations of preprints….”
“We, as Associate Editors (AEs) for the Journal of Biogeography, have serious concerns about the widespread shifts by John Wiley & Sons Ltd (Wiley) and other academic publishers to full Open Access (OA), which appears to be imminent for journals in the Wiley portfolio (Rieseberg et al., 2023) and has been discussed as a possibility for the Journal of Biogeography itself. We commend the philosophy of OA—to make research freely available online, but for many journals that shift to full OA, article publication is accompanied by expensive article processing charges (APCs) payable by the authors (see Laakso et al., 2011; Tennant et al., 2016). This creates a financial burden that falls heaviest on early career scientists and scientists from low- to middle-income countries, erecting barriers to equity in publishing. The typical APC fees for OA range from 2000 to 3500 USD but can even surpass 11,000 USD, while the Journal of Biogeography APC is currently 4800 USD per article. A shift from subscription-based to full OA-based business models with APCs also clearly shifts the economic incentives for journals away from quality and toward quantity. High-throughput and high-output publishing models in academia severely risk lowering research standards and jeopardise the reputation of journals that adopt this practice.
As a way of signalling the depth of our concerns, 85% of the AEs of the Journal of Biogeography recently carried out a work stoppage, during which we refused to handle any new manuscript submissions. We view this as a temporary measure, as a way of encouraging further dialogue between Wiley, the publisher of the Journal of Biogeography, and the chief editorial team charged with ensuring journal quality….
Wiley, the owner and publisher of the Journal of Biogeography, has had a reported annual revenue in recent years of over 2 billion USD per annum with a gross profit margin averaging nearly 70%….”
“We seek proposals that will address topics or questions surrounding tenure, promotion, and recognition models, such as: …
How can Open Science be leveraged to transform recognition models and processes? …”
“Throughout the sessions, participants made clear that early career researchers have long been at the forefront of the open science movement, so the future of open science must center their voices and recognize their leadership. Additional key messages included:
Equity must be embedded in open science policies and programs to promote a more inclusive and collaborative scientific ecosystem. Doing so requires recognizing and addressing uneven access to open science infrastructures, expertise, training, and funding to meet the diverse needs of researchers, institutions, and communities to enjoy the benefits of open science.
Dedicated funding and resources are needed to support both formal and informal training opportunities for early career researchers, who tend to be self-taught and are often not afforded dedicated time to learn open science practices. These include openly available training modules on topics like effective data management practices, ethical frameworks for data sharing, and tools to enhance reproducibility, as well as communities of practice, such as workshops and journal clubs.
Rewarding sharing of research outputs beyond publications, such as scientific data and software, in research and performance assessments can elevate their importance in scholarly communication and incentivize the time needed for effective curation and sharing practices. Speakers noted this can help ease the pressure to “publish or perish” within current incentive structures, which emphasize the volume of peer-reviewed publications that researchers must author, as well as enhancing research quality, reproducibility, and rigor.
Investing in centralized open science infrastructure and resources, as well as networks for knowledge sharing, can enable more equitable access to opportunities for technical assistance and skill development given these resources are not evenly distributed across research institutions, particularly lower-resourced or less research-intensive institutions.
Open science enables new pathways for how scientific information is communicated to various audiences. Some speakers advocated for increased sharing of preliminary research findings through preprints and resulting opportunities for open peer review. Others spoke to science communication and public engagement efforts to share research findings and connect with community advocates, science enthusiasts, and other members of the broader public.
Expanding equitable access to the products and processes of research can provide pathways to co-create research questions and solutions with communities and to develop hands-on educational opportunities by reusing openly available data and software.”