Open research: Enhancing transparency in peer review – Langley?Evans – 2022 – Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics – Wiley Online Library

“Unfortunately, the ideas that underpin open science meet most resistance within universities at the level of individual researchers. This is because cultural shifts in non-commercial environments take some time to accomplish and academia is notorious for its lack of change agility and inertia….

Some journals have now adopted a model of open review in which the authors and the reviewers are made known to each other from the start. This is proposed to encourage a civil debate about the work and improve its quality, as well as to enhance reviewer performance. However, there is a risk that a relatively junior reviewer may feel too intimidated to openly criticise the work of a senior researcher in the field (and who they may want to work with in future) and there are concerns that reviewers may not wish to review on those terms, making life difficult for editors to secure the necessary level of scrutiny for papers. Transparent peer review removes some of this concern. With this approach, anonymity can be preserved during the review process but, after the paper is accepted, the reviews and author responses are published along with the paper, for open scrutiny. The identity of the reviewer can remain concealed during the review process but, in a fully transparent review, their identity would be made public after paper acceptance….

The Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics has operated with double-blind peer review for many years. Recently, the journal has joined the Wiley Transparent Peer Review pilot scheme. This brings together the publisher with Publons and ScholarOne (part of Clarivate Web of Science) and enables the entire peer review process associated with a paper to be published alongside the accepted paper. Our papers now have an Open Research section, which provides a link to the digital object identifier and allow readers to see the peer review content. The peer review and author responses are in themselves citable materials. Our transparent peer review is a voluntary process for both authors and reviewers. Authors can opt to keep the peer review comments unpublished and reviewers can remain anonymous but still have their comments published….

Despite our push for openness through the transparent peer review scheme, there seems to be a reluctance to participate….

I would like to finish this editorial with an exhortation to take part in the revolution. Let us make research in the area of nutrition and dietetics more open! The advantages are clear. Open science is more interesting science, more collaborative science and kinder science. Transparent peer review is not something to be feared and should instead prompt constructive dialogues between authors, editors and peer reviewers. If there are some dinosaurs out there who still want to use peer review as a platform for bullying their junior colleagues, they will be in for a shock as the growth of more healthy research environments and communities leaves them behind. Transparent peer review is certainly not a panacea, but it is a great step forward to put right some of the historical problems that lie in the peer review system.”

Nursing Reports | Free Full-Text | Introducing Nursing Reports: An Open Access Nursing Journal That’s a Little Bit Different | HTML

“The purpose of this editorial is to introduce a new publisher and a new editor-in-chief of Nursing Reports and set out a mission for the journal. On the 13 July 2020, MDPI took over from PAGEPress as the publisher of Nursing Reports. I, Prof. Dr. Richard Gray, became the new Editor-in-Chief on 20 July 2020, taking over from Dr. Colleen E. Marzilli Tyler. I would like to thank Dr. Tyler for her valuable and important contribution to the journal.

By way of introduction, I originally trained as a Mental Health Nurses at King’s College in London, in the early 1990s. I then did my Master’s degree in public health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (2000) and my PhD at the Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London (2001). I was a Medical Research Council Post-Doctoral Research Fellow 2001 through 2005 and got my first Chair in 2008 at the University of East Anglia, Norwich. I moved to La Trobe University in Melbourne, Australia, in 2017. Over the course of my career, I have published some 220 papers, most of which—to be honest—are rather dull and often contradictory. If, for some peculiar reason, you are interested in reading some of my papers, they are dutifully listed on my Google Scholar page (https://rb.gy/5jennp).

My aim—as Editor-in-Chief—is that, over the next five years, Nursing Reports becomes a leading, innovative and progressive open access nursing science journal that publishes rigorous and impactful research and scholarship. In this editorial, I would like to explain how we—the publisher, the editorial board and editorial team—will work with you, as putative authors, to achieve this vision.”

Getting Over TOP : Epidemiology

“In May 2015, the Center for Open Science invited Epidemiology to support the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines.1 After consulting our editors and former Editors-in-Chief, I declined this invitation and published an editorial to explain the rationale.2 Nonetheless, the Center for Open Science has assigned a TOP score to the journal and disseminated the score via Clarivate, which also disseminates the Journal Impact Factor. Given that Epidemiology has been scored despite opting not to support the TOP Guidelines, and that our score has been publicized by the Center for Open Science, we here restate and expand our concerns with the TOP Guidelines and emphasize that the guidelines are at odds with Epidemiology’s mission and principles. We declined the invitation to support the TOP Guidelines for three main reasons. First, Epidemiology prefers that authors, reviewers, and editors focus on the quality of the research and the clarity of its presentation over adherence to one-size guidelines. For this reason, among others, the editors of Epidemiology have consistently declined opportunities to endorse or implement endeavors such as the TOP Guidelines.3–5 Second, the TOP Guidelines did not include a concrete plan for program evaluation or revision. Well-meaning guidelines with similar goals sometimes have the opposite of their intended effect.6 Our community would never accept a public health or medical intervention that had little evidence to support its effectiveness (more on that below) and no plan for longitudinal evaluation. We hold publication guidelines to the same standard. Third, we declined the invitation to support the TOP Guidelines because they rest on the untenable premise that each research article’s results are right or wrong, as eventually determined by whether its results are reproducible or not. Too often, and including in the study of reproducibility that was foundational in the promulgation of the TOP Guidelines,7 reproducibility is evaluated by whether results are concordant in terms of statistical significance. This faulty approach has been used frequently, even though the idea that two results—one statistically significant and the other not—are necessarily different from one another is a well-known fallacy.8,9 ”

Open Science – Editorial from ERC Scientific Council

“Open Science aims to transform current scientific practices into a fully transparent and open system, in which all scientific advances are made available not only to the entire scientific community, but also to society at large. A significant bulk of the scientific knowledge generated worldwide is supported by public money, and in many cases, entails scientific and social collaboration. Thus, it seems obvious that this knowledge should belong to society, with no restriction or cost to its immediate accessibility. …”

Open science practices for eating disorders research

Abstract:  This editorial seeks to encourage the increased applicationof three open science practices in eating disordersresearch: Preregistration, Registered Reports, and the shar-ing of materials, data, and code. For each of these prac-tices, we introduce updated International Journal of Eating Disorders author and reviewer guidance. Updates include the introduction of open science badges; specific instruc-tions about how to improve transparency; and the intro-duction of Registered Reports of systematic or meta-analytical reviews. The editorial also seeks to encourage the study of open science practices. Open science prac-tices pose considerable time and other resource burdens.Therefore, research is needed to help determine the valueof these added burdens and to identify efficient strategies for implementing open science practices.

What Is the Price of Science? | mBio

Abstract:  The peer-reviewed scientific literature is the bedrock of science. However, scientific publishing is undergoing dramatic changes, which include the expansion of open access, an increased number of for-profit publication houses, and ready availability of preprint manuscripts that have not been peer reviewed. In this opinion article, we discuss the inequities and concerns that these changes have wrought.

 

The medical journal as an open access multimedia platform for medical communication

“Medical journals are in the business of communication. Rapid changes in information dissemination mean that some journals, while conscientiously focused on improving the traditional journal model, have slipped out of step with modern communication practice. In keeping with the rest of the communication industry, medical journals will need to become more responsive, open, and accessible, focus on their changing audience, move from passive to active research dissemination, and create content in multiple formats. This is not about the future, it is about catching up with the present.”

Editorial: About the possibility of Applied Vegetation Science going Gold Open Access – vegsciblog.org

“Some time ago, IAVS was put in front of quite an important decision. Two of our journals, the Journal of Vegetation Science and Applied Vegetation Science, are currently distributed under the hybrid open-access model, when readers pay, and authors publish for free (while allowing publishing also open access articles for an extra cost). However, Wiley, our publisher, asked us to transfer AVS into the Gold Open Access model (Gold OA) when readers read for free, but authors pay. Wiley argues that the transition into OA is a current trend in publishing and meets the demands of readers and funders. However, the unsaid truth also is that the publishing landscape is changing. Researchers started to use alternative (and often illegal) ways of getting paywalled papers, and the high cost of journal subscriptions lead many libraries and institutions to cancel it. This motivates publishers to transit more and more journals into the Gold OA model, which should secure their profit and in turn also the income of associations, dependent on money from journal publishing. The downside of the Gold OA model, which may not be so apparent to readers, but becomes painfully apparent to the authors, is the costly Article Processing Charge or Article Publication Charge (APC) needed to be paid upon acceptance of the paper for the publication (for AVS currently proposed at £1900 per article)….”

Editorial: About the possibility of Applied Vegetation Science going Gold Open Access – vegsciblog.org

“Some time ago, IAVS was put in front of quite an important decision. Two of our journals, the Journal of Vegetation Science and Applied Vegetation Science, are currently distributed under the hybrid open-access model, when readers pay, and authors publish for free (while allowing publishing also open access articles for an extra cost). However, Wiley, our publisher, asked us to transfer AVS into the Gold Open Access model (Gold OA) when readers read for free, but authors pay. Wiley argues that the transition into OA is a current trend in publishing and meets the demands of readers and funders. However, the unsaid truth also is that the publishing landscape is changing. Researchers started to use alternative (and often illegal) ways of getting paywalled papers, and the high cost of journal subscriptions lead many libraries and institutions to cancel it. This motivates publishers to transit more and more journals into the Gold OA model, which should secure their profit and in turn also the income of associations, dependent on money from journal publishing. The downside of the Gold OA model, which may not be so apparent to readers, but becomes painfully apparent to the authors, is the costly Article Processing Charge or Article Publication Charge (APC) needed to be paid upon acceptance of the paper for the publication (for AVS currently proposed at £1900 per article)….”

Author choices on Journal of Cell Science: how ‘open’ are we to Open Access? | Journal of Cell Science

“The Company of Biologists believes that OA is the direction of travel and that the proportion of authors selecting (and funders mandating) OA publication will grow over the coming years. We also recognise the value of OA for our readers. For these reasons, this year has seen an increased focus on OA for the Company and its journals. In addition, a coalition of 20+ (largely European) funders will be implementing new OA mandates from January 2021 under an initiative called Plan S (https://www.coalition-s.org/). Briefly, the aim of Plan S is to make all research funded by ‘cOAlition S’ members publicly available in a high-quality journal or platform under an open (CC-BY) license. We know that this will apply to a proportion of our authors so it’s important that we provide Plan S-compliant publishing options while ensuring that any changes we make do not adversely affect non-Plan S authors….”  

Author choices on Development: how ‘open’ are we to Open Access? | Development

“The Company of Biologists believes that OA is the direction of travel and that the proportion of authors selecting (and funders mandating) OA publication will grow over the coming years. We also recognise the value of OA for our readers. For these reasons, this year has seen an increased focus on OA for the Company and its journals. In addition, a coalition of 20+ (largely European) funders will be implementing new OA mandates from January 2021 under an initiative called Plan S (https://www.coalition-s.org/). Briefly, the aim of Plan S is to make all research funded by ‘cOAlition S’ members publicly available in a high-quality journal or platform under an open (CC-BY) license. We know that this will apply to a proportion of our authors so it’s important that we provide Plan S-compliant publishing options while ensuring that any changes we make do not adversely affect non-Plan S authors….”  

Author choices on JEB: how ‘open’ are we to Open Access? | Journal of Experimental Biology

“The Company of Biologists believes that OA is the direction of travel and that the proportion of authors selecting (and funders mandating) OA publication will grow over the coming years. We also recognise the value of OA for our readers. For these reasons, this year has seen an increased focus on OA for the Company and its journals. In addition, a coalition of 20+ (largely European) funders will be implementing new OA mandates from January 2021 under an initiative called Plan S (https://www.coalition-s.org/). Briefly, the aim of Plan S is to make all research funded by ‘cOAlition S’ members publicly available in a high-quality journal or platform under an open (CC-BY) license. We know that this will apply to a proportion of our authors so it’s important that we provide Plan S-compliant publishing options while ensuring that any changes we make do not adversely affect non-Plan S authors….”

Free books online? Who could be against that? – The Washington Post

“IMAGINE A repository full of free books, available at the click of a button to anyone, anywhere, anytime. Whether this is a utopia, a dystopia or something in between depends on whom you ask — but thanks to the Internet Archive, it’s a reality. Now publishers are suing to stop it….

Its storehouse of scanned physical copies of books, however, is possibly illegal. And its decision amid the novel coronavirus pandemic to create a “National Emergency Library” by suspending limitations on how frequently these books can be “lent out” makes the problem worse….

And yet — the archive does appear to be serving a need. The National Emergency Library, which defends its strategy as copyright fair use, is supposed to get books to people when physical libraries are closed….

The Internet Archive’s approach is much like piracy and less like a library. The repository ought to negotiate with publishers to get more books to more people — but also more money to more authors who’ve rightfully earned it. Yet what this kerfuffle over a non-library reveals is really a library problem. The legal and business landscape lags a public that more and more is reading digitally. Publishers impose fees and conditions that they consider necessary to stay afloat and librarians consider draconian. It’s past time to catch up: The National Emergency Library isn’t really a library, but libraries are facing a bit of a national emergency.”

Academic Publishing and the Future of Open Access : Optometry and Vision Science

“Unfortunately, sanity, clarity, and insight about the future of academic publishing are hard to come by—the future is highly uncertain. If I had to say which way the momentum is shifting, it is toward open access and a more binary division between very large and small publishers, with fewer midsize publishers. That probably means there will be some additional industry consolidation and possible acquisitions. Journals affiliated with academic societies will be pressured to find sufficient subscription or other revenue to support their journals. Alternatively, author charges or some viable mix of subscription and page charge revenues will sustain them. Publishers will be increasingly pressured to serve the interests of authors as well as the interests of their funding agencies. The prospect of 38% annual profits is likely gone, and publishers will be pushed to further innovate in how they produce, distribute, and market scientific knowledge to maintain their relevance and market share. It would be interesting if scientific articles were treated like digital music. If a unifying force were capable of bringing the biggest publishing houses to the table to negotiate reasonable fees for libraries, authors, and the broader public, this could truly transform the world’s access to scientific knowledge….”

European Science Editing is in full open access now

Abstract:  I am excited to announce that with this volume European Science Editing (ESE) has shifted from the print to a fully digital open access version. The journal underwent several changes last year. First of all, our publisher, the European Association of Science Editors (EASE) was generously offered – and accepted – a new ARPHA submission system (powered by PenSoft). Together with the EASE president Pippa Smart and EASE Council, we decided to transform ESE into a fully open access online journal. After several months of planning and re-thinking our strategy, a small working group (some members of the EASE Council and of ESE’s associate editors) prepared a proposal, the main idea of which was to divide the journal in two overlapping publications: European Science Editing and EASE Digest. The former will continue to publish original articles, reviews (formerly “essays”), viewpoints, and correspondence using the fully open access ARPHA submission system (flow publishing) but will drop the other sections, namely News notes, The editor’s bookshelf, This site I like, and EASE Forum Digest). These sections, which our readers consider particularly valuable, will now be published in EASE Digest with a few selected articles from ESE. The Digest will be available to EASE members only. As the proposal was accepted by the EASE Council in September 2019, the journal’s transformation is already under way. I wish to thank Silvia Maina (This site I like), Fiona Murphy (Book reviews), Elise Langdon-Neuner (EASE-Forum Digest), Anna Maria Rossi (The Editor’s bookshelf), and James Hartley and Denys Wheatley (members of the International Advisory Board) for the great work they have done and for their cooperation.