WAME Newsletter #93, March 16, 2022

Selections from this issue:

Providing the links does not imply WAME's endorsement. Please send any suggestions for content or format to [email protected]. See the Index Page for Newsletters 2020-2022 and the WAME Newsletter Compilation for content from earlier newsletters. Covid resources are also available. 

ACADEMIA

"A Randomized Approach to Awarding Grants" from Novo Nordisk Foundation: "For the next three years, the Copenhagen-based funding agency will use a combination of committee selection and a lottery system to choose some of the awardees of its $500,000 Project Grants in the fields of biomedicine, biotechnology, and natural and technical sciences, as well as its $800,000 Exploratory Interdisciplinary Synergy Grants…She says she hopes that the partial randomization system will reduce conscious and unconscious bias in the committee selection process and improve funding inequities."

Are libraries “neutral”? And neutral about what?

The Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) is conducting a survey of researchers globally – since some editors are also researchers, if this is you, consider taking this 10 minute survey. The survey covers researchers' opinions about certain communication practices (like journal publishing, open licenses, and peer review) and asks their interest in joining a team of researchers "(1-2 hours per week for 3-4 months) to help develop new, global, researcher-centric policies for communication." Participants will be entered into a drawing to win a $100 Amazon gift card; three winners will be chosen at random. 

ACCESS

"ResearchGate responsible for illegal content on its site, German court rules" after Elsevier and the American Chemical Society (ACS)..."sued ResearchGate alleging copyright infringement in 50 research papers uploaded to the site." ResearchGate is appealing. "In its statement, ResearchGate said it was remarkable that the court dismissed the damage claims based on the publishers’ standard copyright licensing agreements...[O]ther publishers are taking a different tack with ResearchGate, with Springer Nature and Wiley-Blackwell reaching syndication agreements to facilitate the upload of their content on the site."

"Sci-Hub downloads show countries where pirate paper site is most used" -- Some Top 10 results may surprise you, as they include countries where people are perceived to have institutional access: In order of number of downloads: China, US, France, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Germany, Singapore, Mexico, Iran (see also data caveats)

US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention "Isn’t Publishing Large Portions of the Covid Data It Collects...the pandemic exposed the fact that data systems at the C.D.C., and at the state levels, are outmoded and not up to handling large volumes of data. C.D.C. scientists are trying to modernize the systems…public health officials in Scotland said they would stop releasing data on Covid hospitalizations and deaths by vaccination status because of similar fears that the figures would be misrepresented by anti-vaccine groups."

“Updating ‘What Should a Conference Cost?’: Lessons Learned from Another Year of Online Meetings”

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

"Capitalizing on transparency: Commercial surveillance and pharmaceutical marketing after the [US] Physician Sunshine Act...while the Sunshine Act has clearly helped expose important commercial influences on both prescribing and the scale of industry involvement with physicians, it has also, paradoxically, fuelled further commercial surveillance and marketing. The article casts new light on innovative pharmaceutical marketing approaches and the key role of data brokers and analytics companies in the identification, targeting, managing, and surveillance of physicians. We place this analysis within the political economies of the pharmaceutical industry, surveillance-based marketing, and transparency, and argue that policies to promote increased transparency must be tightly tied to policies that impede the commodification and use of transparency data for surveillance and marketing purposes."

DIVERSITY, EQUITY, INCLUSION

"Joint commitment for action on inclusion and diversity in publishing": "The giant plan to track diversity in research journals...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...After more than 18 months of discussion, publishers are now close to agreeing on a standard set of questions — and some have already started gathering information." See “Minimum standards for inclusion and diversity for scholarly publishing”

"Moving forward together with open science...Five steps to meaningful public engagement...1. Make research accessible and inclusive for diverse public groups...2. Coordinate diversity of participation and raise awareness of its added value...3. Make it attractive for researchers to engage public groups...4. Make expectations explicit, evaluate and reflect on public engagement...5. Give citizens a say."

“Gender Influences on Editorial Decisions at Epidemiology: [A]uthor gender and combinations of author gender were not associated with the decisions to accept, reject, and reject without review. Likewise, the time to first decision does not depend on author gender or the combinations of author gender.”

“Offensive or Inclusive Language in Scientific Communication?” In physics, consider “infant mortality” of stars, “promiscuous” star clusters, “black widow” pulsars

"For LGBQ scientists, being out can mean more publications...'There may be a selection bias for people who are out and that have supportive environments that helped them to thrive and continue in academia.'”

US Department of Justice "ending Trump-era 'China Initiative'; national security program fueled Asian 'intolerance, bias'"

How effective is artificial intelligence at increasing accessibility of science? “AI isn’t understanding the research itself – it is trying to offer an interpretation based on the terms used and how they might be rendered into a language that is imagined to be more accessible. What is often lost in such processes is the actual nuances that underpin originality in research. However, this does not stop the AI from becoming a narrator for research charged with finding the means and words for accessing imagined audiences beyond those that are assumed to be able to access the research.”

EDITING

What is the version of record?

Directory of Open Access Journals [DOAJ] offers free webinars in English and French:

“Journal editor explains ban on manuscripts from Russian institutions…‘the decision we took does not apply to Russian citizens, but to Russian institutions’.” Meanwhile: "Few journals heed calls to boycott Russian papers...Since Russian forces invaded their country, Ukrainian scientists have repeatedly issued a plea to the world’s journal editors: Punish Russia by declining to publish manuscripts from its scientists. But editors and publishers have largely refused the call. The journals cite a long-held principle in scientific publishing, enshrined by the International Science Council and other organizations, to not discriminate against authors based on their nationality or political views." and a related commentary in BMJ: "Should Western science institutions and scientists boycott their Russian equivalents?...If we now fight wars with economic and soft power, does it not follow that science institutions, including journals, should cut links with Russian institutions and perhaps even Russian scientists?" Related: “Decoupling [science] from Russia”

"[P]hrases used to discuss results that do not reach statistical significance...We identified 61,741 phrases in 49,134 RCTs indicating almost significant results (8.65%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 8.58% to 8.73%). The overall prevalence of these phrases remained stable over time, with the most prevalent phrases being “marginally significant” (in 7,735 RCTs), “all but significant” (7,015), “a nonsignificant trend” (3,442), “failed to reach statistical significance” (2,578), and “a strong trend” (1,700)...The fact that the prevalence of the phrases remained stable over time indicates that this practice of broadly interpreting P values close to a predefined threshold remains prevalent."

"Factors affecting time to publication in information science...Our results show that publication time is significantly shorter when an editorial board member or a productive author of a given journal is one of the authors, in compare [sic] with the articles. [sic] submitted by other authors...The papers with authors from central countries and high-income countries have an advantage of shorter publication time."

"Pandemic publishing: rethinking editorial ethics during COVID": recommendations for editors likely are easier in retrospect than they would have been in real time but nevertheless may be worth a read

IMPACT

How do citation counts listed with articles affect how they’re interpreted? "We find that most citations (54%) had little-to-no influence on the citing authors. However, citations to the most highly cited papers were 2–3 times more likely to denote substantial influence. Experimental and correlational data show a key mechanism: displaying low citation counts lowers perceptions of a paper's quality, and papers with poor perceived quality are read more superficially. The results suggest that higher citation counts lead to more meaningful engagement from readers and, consequently, the most highly cited papers influence the research frontier much more than their raw citation counts imply." The authors discuss further: “Such searches commonly display citation counts alongside results. Yet, our study shows that this affects how and what we choose to read. As a result, a significant amount of potentially influential work may go unread for reasons having nothing to do with its quality. As we note in the paper, even though citations are a poor proxy for the quality of a paper, the “losers” of citation status signals outnumber the “winners” roughly 9-to-1.”

MEDIA

“The Role of the Media [podcast and transcript]…[T]here's an insidious way in which that cultural value works its way into our heads. But those instincts can service really badly, because the work that is most counterintuitive is also most likely to be wrong. And journals are more likely to publish that work because they know it's going to get the media attention and we then provide them with the attention that they crave. And so we reinforce that cycle, then shower the attention upon researchers and just increase the incentives for doing similar kinds of work. If you have just done pathetically underpowered studies your entire career, and yet are getting Nature and Science papers and are covered in the New York Times, then of course you're going to carry on doing that. The entire world around you has repeatedly told you that this is a fine thing that will only improve your standing in the world."

PEER REVIEW

Nature trials transparent peer review: “Authors of new manuscript submissions can now have anonymous referee reports — and their own responses to these reports — published at the same time as their manuscript. Those who agree to act as reviewers know that both anonymous reports and anonymized exchanges with authors might be published. Referees can also choose to be named, should they desire… During 2021, nearly half (46%) of authors chose to publish their discussions with reviewers…Last year, some 69% of Nature Communication’s published research articles were accompanied by anonymous peer-review reports together with author–reviewer exchanges, including manuscripts in life sciences (73% of published papers), chemistry (59%), physics (64%) and Earth sciences (77%).”

"How double anonymous breaks the bias in peer review," in which Institute of Physics journals adopt double anonymous peer review: "Early reports suggest that this double-anonymous approach is working. While it’s too soon to say how double-anonymous is affecting outcomes by gender, overall, our data shows that papers submitted double-anonymous are more likely to be accepted...We are also finding that people who identify as women or non-binary are more likely to anonymise their work than people who identify as men."

“Scientists shouldn’t be allowed to recommend their own peer reviewers… But now that I have a better sense for how the game works, I think I’ll start recommending my friends, colleagues, and Twitter followers.”

"Characteristics of ‘mega’ peer-reviewers [in Publons]...A greater proportion of mega peer reviews were male (92%) as compared to the control reviewers (70% male). Mega peer reviewers demonstrated a significantly greater average number of total publications, citations, receipt of Publons awards, and a higher average h index as compared to the control group of reviewers (all p < .001). We found no statistically significant differences in the number of words between the groups (p > .428)…
The majority of mega peer reviewers were from Asia (33%), Europe (37%), and North America (19%). Among the control group of peer reviewers, 41% were from Europe, 26% from North America, and 21% from Asia."

Plagiarized manuscript appears to have been copied in peer review process

Could duplicate peer reviews be used to identify peer reviewer manipulation?

PREDATORY/DECEPTIVE JOURNALS

"Fraudulent journal impersonating legitimate one deceives both HEC [Higher Education Commission of Pakistan], Pakistani academics [and Scopus]...The name of both the original and hijacked journals is 'Turkish Journal of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation’. The fraudulent owners of the fake journal have not only taken the name of a genuine journal but also copied its International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) on its website to attract academics...The other journal has interestingly been indexed by Scopus, an indexing agency approved by the HEC… Luckily, the HEC has not recognised this fake journal but unluckily, it says the fake and the original journals are one."

PUBLISHING

"Open-access publishing fees deter researchers in the global south...'One of the great ironies of open access is that you grant authors around the world the ability to finally read the scientific literature that was completely closed off to them, but it ends up excluding them from publishing in the same journals.'"

“Plan S and Scholarly Publishing: Some Lessons Learned… ‘Equity is a huge problem that we do need to overcome if we are to make this transition in a sustainable and equitable way…we need a better way, beyond waiver policies, of taking the lower middle income countries with us on this path so they’re not inconvenienced or locked out from publishing like they have been locked out from reading papers sometimes’…’taking time to leverage policy changes to take diversity, equity, and inclusion into real action, especially through publishing, is a way that we can really make sure that we’re creating an equitable research ecosystem, so there’s no financial barriers to participation either in publishing or reading.’”

“Public Access Policy in the United States: Impact of the Scholarly Publishing Roundtable”: A piece of history of the US open access movement, publishers’ responses, and how the NIH embargo compromise was negotiated. The published version is subscription only but the author’s accepted manuscript copy is available here.

Why Aren’t There More Women at the Top in Scholarly Publishing?

The Future of Scholarly Societies: Interviews with Society Leaders Parts 1 and 2

"Expanded Access to Paywalled Content: A Hidden Benefit of Transformative Agreements...Transformative agreements, which are also known as read-and-publish agreements, are a mechanism to shift library dollars spent from subscriptions to read paywalled content towards open access publishing services." Like "Big Deals," "transformative agreements also bundle titles – but for both reading and publishing." In several examples provided, "there is automatically expanded access to paywalled content for their readers when taking up the transformative offering." Plus, how one transformative agreement works in practice.

Elsevier, “one of the top publishers of books aimed at expanding fossil fuel production” is also “one of a handful of companies that publish peer-reviewed climate research. Scientists and academics say they’re concerned that Elsevier’s conflicting business interests risk undermining their work.”

RESEARCH INTEGRITY AND MISCONDUCT

"PLOS Publication Ethics: A frank discussion on handling difficult cases...When thinking about the time required for this work, it’s important to bear in mind that these aren’t just cases – they’re people. People whose work is being questioned, sometimes years after it was completed. People who may have retired or left academic research...We appreciate the importance of correcting the published record in a timely manner, and likewise we understand that it can negatively impact researchers and others to have problematic articles or unreliable results remain unmarked and unactioned in the published record...Interim notices can benefit readers while journals and/or institutions complete their investigations, but it is important to bear in mind that a substantial fraction of issues raised to PLOS do not ultimately warrant any formal editorial action. For example, concerns may not be verified per our editorial assessments, or may reflect differences of opinion rather than bona fide errors."

"Science Knows No Country: Culture’s Impact on Research Misconduct Proceedings...Scientists who were trained in other countries may have been taught practices that are acceptable there but outside the norm in the U.S. This should not be viewed as surprising or indicative of intent, particularly given that scientific standards and accepted practices are continuously evolving...Rather than rushing to conclusions or assuming the worst of colleagues, members of committees reviewing research misconduct allegations should keep in mind the remedial purpose of the research misconduct process and the fact that it is meant to protect science rather than punish scientists."

“International Students and Academic Misconduct: Considering Culture, Community, and Context…International students experience unique challenges that place them at risk for academic misconduct violations, including language, academic expectations, cultural differences, academic preparedness, and policy understanding…This overview…describes trends in research for those countries identified as receivers and suppliers of international students, the role of culture in academic misconduct research, and considerations for future research and practice. The resulting summary offers considerations for researchers, institutions, and educators to actively respond to these students’ needs in culturally meaningful ways.”

"Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands...Being a PhD candidate or junior researcher increased the odds of frequently engaging in at least one QRP, as did being male. Scientific norm subscription (odds ratio (OR) 0.79; 95% CI: 0.63, 1.00) and perceived likelihood of detection by reviewers (OR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.44, 0.88) were associated with engaging in less research misconduct. Publication pressure was associated with more often engaging in one or more QRPs frequently (OR 1.22, 95% CI: 1.14, 1.30)."

"Innovation and misconduct in the pharmaceutical industry...A large body of non-quantitative literature argues that many pharmaceutical firms engage in misconduct in order to promote sales and overcome innovation deficits."

“Academic Misconduct in Higher Education [in Canada]: Beyond Student Cheating" [ebook] including "policy changes in Canada’s approach to dealing with research misconduct" and "public accounts of academic transgressions by Canadian faculty and administrators, with a primary focus on research misconduct...Articles in the press are then used to further highlight incidents of academic fraud and plagiarism, as well as questionable practices in student supervision, hiring practices, international student recruitment, and inappropriate interpersonal relationships. We conclude by calling for a comprehensive study of academic misconduct by faculty and administrators at Canadian higher education institutions as well as an assessment of how well the changes to Canada’s policies on research misconduct are working, particularly with respect to public disclosure."

US Office of Research Integrity (ORI) summary of findings in 2021

RESEARCH REPRODUCIBILITY AND TRANSPARENCY

"Time to celebrate science’s ‘hidden’ contributors...In parallel to the [UK] Research Excellence Framework (REF), which periodically assesses the research quality of UK universities and directly awards funding accordingly, we ran the Hidden REF to expand what’s valued in science. In doing so, we uncovered a side effect of formalized frameworks: concentration on outputs. The REF measured the impact of research across 22 categories of output, from journal publications to software. The assessment of these outputs contributes 65% towards the total score received by a university. The last REF, in 2014, received 191,000 outputs, and 189,000 of these were related to publications. In other words, only 3% of the outputs related to everything else that is produced by research, from data to compositions to devices and products."

"The reproducibility debate is an opportunity, not a crisis...The UK Reproducibility Network (UKRN) brings together Local Networks of researchers, Institutions, and External Stakeholders (funders, publishers, learned societies and other sectoral organisations), to coordinate action on reproducibility and work to ensure the UK retains its place as a centre for world-leading research."

RETRACTIONS AND CORRECTIONS

“Addressing the Continued Circulation of Retracted Research as a Design Problem”…Recommendations are: “1. Develop a systematic cross-industry approach to ensure the public availability of consistent, standardized, interoperable, and timely information about retractions. 2. Recommend a taxonomy of retraction categories/classifications and corresponding retraction metadata that can be adopted by all stakeholders. 3. Develop best practices for coordinating the retraction process to enable timely, fair, unbiased outcomes. 4. Educate stakeholders about publication correction processes including retraction and about pre- and post-publication stewardship of the scholarly record.”

"Approaches to destigmatize and speed the scientific correction process…authors have been involved with error-checking research and have been the target of reprisals in a number of ways"

"[R]etracted journal articles in the field of veterinary medicine and animal health...Authors/groups with ≥2 retractions accounted for 37.2% of retractions. Authors from Iran and China published 19.4 and 18.2% of retracted articles respectively...Publication misconduct (plagiarism, duplicate publication, compromised peer review) accounted for 75.6% of retractions, compared with errors (20.6%) and research misconduct (18.2%). Journals published by societies/institutions were less likely than those from commercial publishers to indicate a reason for retraction. Thirty-one percent of HTML articles and 14% of PDFs were available online but not marked as retracted."

Paper published early online is retracted, then published later in print journal without retraction notice: How to prevent?

MAY BE OF INTEREST (Subscription or login required)

Sources include Retraction Watch, Healthcare Information for All, Open Scholarship Initiative listserve, and Scholarly Kitchen.

Margaret Winker, MD
Trustee, WAME
***
wame.org
wame.blog
@WAMedEditors
www.facebook.com/WAMEmembers