Guest Post – New Winds from the Latin American Scientific Publishing Community – The Scholarly Kitchen

“To help evaluate interest in the idea of a regional association and to better understand editors’ perspectives on the use of journal metrics for science evaluations, a survey of journal editors was carried out, with 20 questions aimed at characterizing the journal they edit, such as subject area(s), audience, business model and adoption of open science, coverage by databases, strategies for increasing visibility, and use of metrics and indicators for journal management. The survey also included four questions about the use of citation impact indicators for national evaluations of science performed by governmental agencies in Latin America and their effects on the publication and research activities in the region….

A large majority of the editors who responded to the survey felt that the use of citation impact indicators for evaluating science in Latin America is inadequate or partially adequate (70%-88% depending on the specific area of evaluation)….

This feedback was used to support the development of the ALAEC Manifesto for the responsible use of metrics in research evaluation in Latin America and the Caribbean, which calls for a more inclusive and responsible use of journal-based metrics in research evaluation. It supports previous manifestos, such as the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment – DORA (2012), the Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics (2015), and the Helsinki Initiative on Multilingualism in Scholarly Communication (2019). Acknowledging that the current criteria imposed by Latin American evaluating bodies have perverse consequences for the region’s journals and that authors will therefore have less incentive to submit articles to them, the manifesto has five main calls to action:

 

Re-establish quality criteria, valuing journals that:

Publish relevant research regardless of area or subject matter, language, target audience, or geographic scope
Bring a broad spectrum of scholarly and research contributions, such as replication, innovation, translation, synthesis, and meta-research
Practice open science, including open access
Adopt high ethical standards, prioritizing quality and integrity in scientific publication

Value and stimulate the work of scientific editors and their teams, promoting their training and development, and recognizing their fundamental role in the adoption and dissemination of good practices in scientific publication.
Ensure that national journals and publishers do not lose financial incentives and the flow of article submissions, allowing them to achieve and maintain high standards of quality and integrity in their editorial processes, especially for journals that practice open science and multilingualism.
Strengthen, disseminate, and protect national and regional infrastructures for scientific communication (SciELO, RedALyC, LatIndex, LA Referencia, and non-commercial CRIS systems), that favor open science and multilingualism, and that can generate the most appropriate metrics and indicators to evaluate local and regional science.
Encourage and value collaborative networks and exchanges between all actors in the ecosystem of knowledge production and dissemination: institutions, authors, reviewers and funding agencies, etc., in the region….”

May the force be with you: Resources to help journal editors advance their fields (registration)

“Join us to talk with highly respected social science journal editors and scholarly knowledge builders and reflect on how journal editors can advance their fields. Conversations will be centred around open science and the future of scholarly publishing. Our free, online, interactive workshop includes two plenary talks and two opportunities to participate in smaller group discussions (out of six options, see below).”

Advancing Self-Evaluative and Self-Regulatory Mechanisms of Scholarly Journals: Editors’ Perspectives on What Needs to Be Improved in the Editorial Process

Meticulous self-evaluative practices in the offices of academic periodicals can be helpful in reducing widespread uncertainty about the quality of scholarly journals. This paper summarizes the results of the second part of a qualitative worldwide study among 258 senior editors of scholarly journals across disciplines. By means of a qualitative questionnaire, the survey investigated respondents’ perceptions of needed changes in their own editorial workflow that could, according to their beliefs, positively affect the quality of their journals. The results show that the most relevant past improvements indicated by respondents were achieved by: (a) raising the required quality criteria for manuscripts, by defining standards for desk rejection and/or shaping the desired qualities of the published material, and (b) guaranteeing a rigorous peer review process. Respondents believed that, currently, three areas have the most pressing need for amendment: ensuring higher overall quality of published articles (26% of respondents qualified this need as very high or high), increasing the overall quality of peer-review reports (23%), and raising reviewers’ awareness of the required quality standards (20%). Bivariate analysis shows that respondents who work with non-commercial publishers reported an overall greater need to improve implemented quality assessment processes. Work overload, inadequate reward systems, and a lack of time for development activities were cited by respondents as the greatest obstacles to implementing necessary amendments.

The giant plan to track diversity in research journals

 

In the next year, researchers should expect to face a sensitive set of questions whenever they send their papers to journals, and when they review or edit manuscripts. More than 50 publishers representing over 15,000 journals globally are preparing to ask scientists about their race or ethnicity — as well as their gender — in an initiative that’s part of a growing effort to analyse researcher diversity around the world. Publishers say that this information, gathered and stored securely, will help to analyse who is represented in journals, and to identify whether there are biases in editing or review that sway which findings get published. Pilot testing suggests that many scientists support the idea, although not all.

PeerJ Tokens – Rewarding Peer Review

We want to rethink how you are rewarded for your contribution to peer review. We want to address the question of the unrewarded labor you provide to scientific communication and we want to lower prices that are creating barriers to Open Access. We want to make it easier for anyone to contribute and we want to make open accessible for all.

Now, when you contribute to PeerJ as a reviewer or academic editor, you will earn PeerJ Tokens. Tokens can be exchanged for discounts on our Article Processing Charge.

The role of journals and journal editors in advancing global health research equity – Jumbam – – Anaesthesia – Wiley Online Library

“Given the power they hold in the research process, journals and journal editors have a responsibility to ensure that the research they choose to publish and by extension research of value, does not perpetuate unjust and exploitative research practices. Just like most medical journals require institutional review boards for research involving human subjects [8], journals also ought to develop and adopt guidelines and standards that prevent unethical research practices like ‘parachute or helicopter’ research in LMICs. In the current issue of Anaesthesia, Morton et al. present a consensus statement on measures to promote equitable authorship in the publication of research from international partnerships in global health [9]….

The training of local graduate students, for example, should also be considered as an important objective in global health research partnerships between HICs and LMICs. Just as many global health funding proposals by HIC institutions now include costs for article processing charges for open access journal publications and the training for graduate students at HIC institutions, we recommend that global health funding opportunities also include costs for research capacity building for LMIC partners….”

ResearchHub Editor Program

 

ResearchHub is a scientific forum where users are rewarded with an Ethereum token called ResearchCoin for openly publishing, curating, and discussing scientific papers. Our goal is to create an opportunity for any scientist to be adequately compensated for openly sharing their expertise within the academic community. A thriving community is the heart of every successful platform and ResearchHub is no different. Editors will play a key role in bootstrapping the ResearchHub community. Loosely speaking, their job will be a hybrid between an Ambassador, a moderator, and a traditional journal editor. Editors will be assigned to various hubs (analogous to scientific journals) where they will:

Participate in scientific discussion
Curate quality content
Grow the community

Editors publishing in their own journals – a systematic review of prevalence and a discussion of normative aspects | MetaArXiv Preprints

Helgesson, G., Radun, I., Radun, J., & Nilsonne, G. (2021, November 10). Editors publishing in their own journals – a systematic review of prevalence and a discussion of normative aspects. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/dc6je

 

Abstract

Journal editors are the main gatekeepers in scientific publishing. Yet there is a concern that they may receive preferential treatment when submitting manuscripts to their own journals. The prevalence of such self-publishing is not known, nor the consequences for reliability and trustworthiness of published research. This study aimed to systematically review the literature on the prevalence of editors publishing in their own journals and to conduct a normative ethical analysis of this practice. A systematic review was performed using the following databases: Medline, PsycInfo, Scopus, and Web of Science. Articles that provided primary data about editors publishing in own journals were included. We identified 15 studies meeting inclusion criteria. There was large variability of self-publishing across fields, journals, and editors, ranging from those who never published in their own journal to those publishing extensively in their own journal. Many studies suffered from serious methodological limitations. Nevertheless, our results show that there are settings where levels of self-publication are very high. We recommend that editors-in-chief and associate editors who have considerable power in journals refrain from publishing research articles in their own journals. Journals should have clear processes in place about treatment of articles submitted by editorial board members.

Editors are Gatekeepers of Science, but Individual Editors Don’t Matter Much by Joshua Krieger, Kyle Myers, Ariel Dora Stern :: SSRN

 

As editors for academic journals, a select few individuals control the certification and dissemination of science. We examine editors’ influence on the content of their journals by unpacking the role of three major forces in publication. We term these “journal missions” (stable revealed preferences), “topic markets” (the aggregate supply of and demand for specific topics), and “scientific homophily” (via editorial gatekeeping). Focusing on a panel of leading biomedical journals, we find that missions and markets explain the vast majority of variation in published content. Conditional on these forces, the upper bound of the editor-homophily effect is statistically significant but practically unimportant. Our findings suggest that marginal changes in editorial board composition will not meaningfully impact a journal’s scientific content in the short run; however, our results do not rule out persistent or pervasive frictions in the publication process.