Opening up Science—to Skeptics – By Rohan Arcot & Hunter Gehlbach – Behavioral Scientist

“The research community is no stranger to skepticism. Its own members have been questioning the integrity of many scientific findings with particular intensity of late. In response, we have seen a swell of open science norms and practices, which provide greater transparency about key procedural details of the research process, mitigating many research skeptics’ misgivings. These open practices greatly facilitate how science is communicated—but only between scientists. 

Given the present historical moment’s critical need for science, we wondered: What if scientists allowed skeptics in the general public to look under the hood at how their studies were conducted? Could opening up the basic ideas of open science beyond scholars help combat the epidemic of science skepticism?  …”

A Registry of Editorial Boards – a new trust signal for scholarly communications? – Crossref

“Whilst most journal websites only give the names of the editors, others possibly add a country, some include affiliations, very few link to a professional profile, an ORCID ID. Even when it’s clear when the editorial board details were updated, it’s hardly ever possible to find past editorial boards information and almost none lists declarations of competing interest.

We hear of instances where a researcher’s name has been listed on the board of a journal without their knowledge or agreement, potentially to deceive other researchers into submitting their manuscripts. Regular reports of impersonation, nepotism, collusion and conflicts of interest have become a cause for concern.

Similarly, recent studies on gender representation and gender and geographical disparity on editorial boards have highlighted the need to do better in this area and provide trusted, reliable and coherent information on editorial board members in order to add transparency, prevent unethical behaviour, maintain trust, promote and support research integrity….

We are proposing the creation of some form of Registry of Editorial Boards to encourage best practice around editorial boards’ information and governance that can easily be accessed and used by the community….”

Why citizen review might beat peer review at identifying pursuitworthy scientific research – ScienceDirect

“Highlights

 

• Citizen review should be considered alongside peer review and lotteries as a method for allocating scientific grants.
• Drawing grant reviews from the lay population may do better at identifying pursuitworthy research than peer review does.
• Citizen review also improves trust in science and science communication.”

 

Trust, scholarship and data sharing – Thistlethwaite – 2022 – The Clinical Teacher – Wiley Online Library

“For some journals, publishers and editors require that all raw data are deposited on submission, for example into a public repository. However, what should an editor do with these? Most editors are part-time with other academic or clinical responsibilities, as at The Clinical Teacher, and do not have the capacity to scrutinise all data and analyse them again. Consider the amount of text arising from a qualitative study and the time it takes for the team of researchers to analyse, interpret and synthesise these data. In addition, I could not be sure that all collected data have been deposited. In a scholarly system reliant on altruism as well as trust, I would not expect unremunerated reviewers to put in long hours to check that research data can be trusted. Some journals do employ statisticians to comment specifically on statistical tests and results….”

The importance of transparency and openness in research data to drive patient benefit—Examples from the United Kingdom

“Key points •Openness in research is discussed in many guises and brings manybenefits and there is a need to join up, share good practice andtalk a common language to make maximum progress.•Importance of open publication as a key step to increasing trustand reducing waste in research.•There is a need to be careful about the language used and it iscrucial that the right safeguards are in place to protect people’spersonal data. Personal data should not be‘open’, and discussingit in this way risks its availability and associated use.•Need to start with trust and involvement of patients and the pub-lic to ensure maximum benefit canflow from data.”

Use and trustworthiness of Wikipedia information: students’ perceptions and reflections | Emerald Insight

Abstract:  Purpose

This study aims to explore the trustworthiness of Wikipedia information in terms of accuracy, stability, objectivity and validity among university students along with their perceptions toward the quality of the information in Wikipedia.

Design/methodology/approach

This study used to use a quantitative research design based on the survey method. The questionnaire was designed with the help of literature followed by a pilot study to check its validity and reliability before data collection. A proportionate stratified sampling technique was used to collect data from students in the graduate program.

Findings

Data showed that the majority of the respondents used Wikipedia information regularly for both academic and leisure purposes. It is also noted that they usually did not edit/add content in Wikipedia entries, though they observed incomplete content in it. Findings revealed that among the four constructs of trustworthiness (accuracy, stability, validity and objectivity), respondents had certain reservations about the accuracy of Wikipedia information. They opined that content from Wikipedia is not stable and is susceptible to alternation. Nevertheless, they believed in the objectivity of Wikipedia information as the contents are verified by an editor/expert and this information is considered unbiased and impartial.

Practical implications

These findings may be helpful to fill the knowledge gap in the body of literature and to understand the accuracy.

Originality/value

The current study is the first one to analyze the trustworthiness of information in Wikipedia entries among university students in the context of a developing country.

What Those Responsible for Open Infrastructure in Scholarly Communication Can Do about Possibly Predatory Practices | SciELO Preprints

Abstract:  This chapter presents a three-phase analysis of 521 journals that use the open source publishing platform Open Journal Systems (OJS) while appearing on Beall’s list of predatory publishers and journals and/or inCabells Predatory Reports, both which purport to identify journals that charge authors article processing fees (APC) to publish in the pretense of a peer-reviewed journal. In 2020, 25,671 journals were actively using OJS, with 81.3 percent in the Global South, representing a great growth in global research activities. As members of the Public Knowledge Project, which develops this freely available publishing platform, the authors feel a responsibility to explore what platform developers can do to address both the real problem of duplicitous journals and the over-ascription of the “predatory” label to publishers and journals. represented by the authors of this chapter, Drawing on data from the beacon is a part of OJS, the chapter represents an assessment and intervention In the first phase, the researchers reached out to 50 publishers and 51 journals that use OJS and appear on Beall’s list offering to assist in improving their journal quality. The response from 14 publishers (28.0 percent) among publishers and two journals (3.9 percent) among standalone journals demonstrated a likely misanalysis as “predatory” along multiple dimensions from financial model to peer-review evidence. The second phase, devoted to assessing the degree to which journals using OJS are implicated in this issue, revealed that 2.0 percent of the journals using OJS are on one or both lists. The two phases point to how the identification issue is not that of Beall or Cabells International, but results from a journal tradition of asking readers to take on trust the adherence to scholarly standards. Amid the increase in research and open access to it, the third phase of this study introduces PKP’s new technical strategy for verifying and communicating standards adherence to the public. Work has begun on systems involving trade organizations, such ORCiD and Crossref, for authenticating journal practices (including editorial oversight, peer review, research funding, and data management), while communication strategies include adapting and testing with students and professionals the familiar Nutrition Facts label used with packaged foods. The goal is to provide a publicly accessible industry standard for more reliably assessing journal quality.

 

FAIRsFAIR documents for community review | FAIRsFAIR

“FAIRsFAIR has published the “CoreTrustSeal+FAIRenabling, Capability and Maturity Report”, an updated version of the previous CoreTrustSeal+FAIR Overview and the Draft Maturity Model Based on Extensions and-or Additions to CoreTrustSeal Requirements, both published in August 2020. The report was written for data repositories and received feedback from CoreTrustSeal Board. It presents updates to the FAIRsFAIR alignment of CoreTrustSeal with repository characteristics that enable FAIR data. Though many of the CoreTrustSeal Requirements contribute to enabling FAIR data, each FAIR Principle is aligned with a single CoreTrustSeal Requirement to streamline the preparation of self-assessment statements and supporting evidence. In this text each “Requirement to Principle” mapping is presented alongside the current iteration of RDA FAIR  Data  Indicators  and  the  current  FAIR  tests  as  implemented  by  the  F-UJI  tool.  Together these provide all the context necessary for a repository to self-assess as a CoreTrustSeal TDR that enables FAIR data.

Your comments and suggestions regarding the current version will help us produce the most helpful report possible so please use the link below to access the report as a Google doc and insert your feedback directly….”

SciELO – Brazil – Divulgação científica imuniza contra desinformação Divulgação científica imuniza contra desinformação

From Google’s English:  “Scientific knowledge gained a relevant audience in the pandemic because lies about Covid-19 threaten the lives of the population. It has been a long time since humanity faced such a high mortality disease globally. The pandemic required scientific journals to ensure the rapid publication of available evidence, ensuring the quality of information and the identification of biases that could compromise ittwo, since these works are the essential raw material to fight fake news , misinformation and conspiracy theories, which undermine the population’s adherence to the measures necessary to fight the pandemic….

in an infodemic1, naturally, fanciful, incredible news, which appeals to emotions and seems more phenomenal than reality itself, gains repercussions. The scientific dissemination of Covid-19 became an objective response by scientists to the denial movement3, which calls into question the effectiveness of vaccines, sabotages prevention measures and propagates miracle cures….”

Open science and the new normal | Research Information

“There can be no doubt that Covid-19 gave a boost to open science.

There’s nothing quite like a global pandemic to focus the mind on the need for openness and collaboration, and publishers and researchers quickly took unprecedented steps to reduce the barriers of access to research articles and data.

But as things begin to return to a ‘new normal’, and some of the barriers begin to reappear, it is important to consider what open science has actually gained from the pandemic, and some of the challenges that remain to be overcome in the face of other global challenges….

This is a point that ties into the theme of this year’s Open Access Week (www.openaccessweek.org): ‘It Matters How We Open Knowledge: Building Structural Equity’. While it is easy to focus on the number of papers or amount of data that is being made available, it is important that we don’t ignore the issue of equity during the pandemic. Equity is about ensuring fair and impartial access to the whole of the scientific process, and typically the pandemic had the effect of exacerbating existing inequalities….”

 

Open science and the new normal | Research Information

“There can be no doubt that Covid-19 gave a boost to open science.

There’s nothing quite like a global pandemic to focus the mind on the need for openness and collaboration, and publishers and researchers quickly took unprecedented steps to reduce the barriers of access to research articles and data.

But as things begin to return to a ‘new normal’, and some of the barriers begin to reappear, it is important to consider what open science has actually gained from the pandemic, and some of the challenges that remain to be overcome in the face of other global challenges….

This is a point that ties into the theme of this year’s Open Access Week (www.openaccessweek.org): ‘It Matters How We Open Knowledge: Building Structural Equity’. While it is easy to focus on the number of papers or amount of data that is being made available, it is important that we don’t ignore the issue of equity during the pandemic. Equity is about ensuring fair and impartial access to the whole of the scientific process, and typically the pandemic had the effect of exacerbating existing inequalities….”

 

Open-access science in the misinformation era

“While open-access science has made research available worldwide, some scholars worry that misinformation, fraud and politicization have become rampant in a system that rewards speed and sparkle….

In a widely discussed Scholarly Kitchen piece published last week, Schonfeld said that misinformation, politicization and other problems embedded in the open-access movement stem from a “mismatch” between the incentives in science and the ways in which “openness and politicization are bringing science into the public discourse.” …

While open access has democratized science, to good effect — making research available to sick patients interested in learning more about their condition or to scientists working in the Global South — it also has had “second-order effects” that are more concerning, he said.

“It’s now easier for scientific literature to be quoted and used in all sorts of political discourse,” Schonfeld said in an interview. “When the methods of scholarly publishing that we use today were first formed, there was no sense that there was going to be a kind of politicized discourse looking for opportunities to misinform the public and intentionally cause disunity.” …”