ACN - 101321555 Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)
Search
Generic filters
Exact text matches only
Search into
Filter by Categories
Research integrity
Filter by Categories
Human Research Ethics

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesPeer review

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Continuing Steps to Ensuring Credibility of NIH Research: Selecting Journals with Credible Practices – Extramural Nexus (Mike Lauer | November 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on January 6, 2018
 

The scientific community is paying increasing attention to the quality practices of journals and publishers. NIH recently released a Guide notice (NOT-OD-18-011) to encourage authors to publish in journals that do not undermine the credibility, impact, and accuracy of their research findings. This notice aims to raise awareness about practices like changing publication fees without notice, lacking transparency in publication procedures, misrepresenting editorial boards, and/or using suspicious peer review.

A tangible sign of a funding body responding to the impact of disreputable publishers. This is the fourth and final instalment in our recent resources about the scourge of illegitimate publishers. With our thanks to Julie Simpson for sharing a link to this item on Twitter.

This may not be a big problem for NIH-funded publications now; our colleagues Jennifer Marill, Kathryn Funk, and Jerry Sheehan from the National Library of Medicine note that more than 90% of the 815,000 publicly available journal articles reporting on NIH-funded research are published in MEDLINE indexed journals. Nonetheless, we do know that a problem exists – there are articles reporting NIH-funded research appearing in journals that engage in questionable practices. Ensuring the credibility of NIH funded research is important to maintaining public trust in research.
.

NIH has taken—and continues to take—many steps to ensure the credibility of the research it supports. From enhancing rigor and reproducibility, to encouraging sharing of data and protocols, to promoting pre-prints, and to requiring timely registration and reporting of clinical trial results, NIH establishes policies to make our funded research as credible, transparent, rigorous, and full of impact as possible.
.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Also see:
In a world of hijacked, clone and zombie publishing, where shouldn’t I publish?
Examining publishing practices: moving beyond the idea of predatory…
Continuing Steps to Ensuring Credibility of NIH Research: Selecting Journals with…
Illegitimate Journals and How to Stop Them: An Interview with Kelly Cobey and…
Open access, power, and privilege

Examining publishing practices: moving beyond the idea of predatory open access (Papers: Kevin L. Smith | November 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on January 3, 2018
 

Abstract

Thank you to Julie Simpson for sharing a link to this paper on Twitter. Is our misuse/overuse of the term “predatory open access publishers” missing the mark and squeezing out a far more important discussion?

The word ‘predatory’ has become an obstacle to a serious discussion of publishing practices. Its use has been both overinclusive, encompassing practices that, while undesirable, are not malicious, and underinclusive, missing many exploitative practices outside the open access sphere. The article examines different business models for scholarly publishing and considers the potential for abuse with each model. After looking at the problems of both blacklists and so-called ‘whitelists’, the author suggests that the best path forward would be to create tools to capture the real experience of individual authors as they navigate the publishing process with different publishers.
.

Smith, K.L., (2017). Examining publishing practices: moving beyond the idea of predatory open access. Insights. 30(3), pp.4–10. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.388
Publisher (Open Access): https://insights.uksg.org/article/10.1629/uksg.388/

Also see:
In a world of hijacked, clone and zombie publishing, where shouldn’t I publish?
Examining publishing practices: moving beyond the idea of predatory open access
Continuing Steps to Ensuring Credibility of NIH Research: Selecting Journals with…
Illegitimate Journals and How to Stop Them: An Interview with Kelly Cobey and…
Open access, power, and privilege

Open access, power, and privilege (Papers: Shea Swauger | 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on January 1, 2018
 

A response to “What I learned from predatory publishing”

An edifying insight into some of the strong language about the disappearance of the Beall’s list. Highly recommended for people involved with the professional development of early career researchers.

In June 2017, Jeffrey Beall published an opinion piece in Biochemia Medica titled “What I Learned from Predatory Publishers.”1 While there are several elements of this publication that I find inaccurate or problematic, I’m choosing four specific themes within his piece to critique. In the interest of full disclosure, I am Jeffrey Beall’s direct supervisor at the University of Colorado-Denver’s Auraria Library and have been since I began working there in July 2015.
.

Dangerous nostalgia

.
At several points, Beall describes a history of scholarly publishing where authority and credibility were known and stable, and from…
.

Swauger, S. (2017) Open access, power, and privilege. College & Research Libraries News. 78(11)
Publisher (Open Access): http://crln.acrl.org/index.php/crlnews/article/view/16837/18434

Also see:
In a world of hijacked, clone and zombie publishing, where shouldn’t I publish?
Examining publishing practices: moving beyond the idea of predatory…
Continuing Steps to Ensuring Credibility of NIH Research: Selecting Journals with…
Illegitimate Journals and How to Stop Them: An Interview with Kelly Cobey and…
Open access, power, and privilege

Metrics, recognition, and rewards: it’s time to incentivise the behaviours that are good for research and researchers – LSE Impact Blog (Rebecca Lawrence | November 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on December 30, 2017
 

Researchers have repeatedly voiced their dissatisfaction with how the journals they publish in are used as a proxy for the evaluation of their work. However, those who wish to break free of this model fear negative consequences for their future funding and careers. Rebecca Lawrence emphasises the importance of addressing researchers’ recognition and reward structures, arguing it is time to move to a system that uses metrics and indicators that incentivise the types of behaviours that are good for research and researchers. The European Commission’s Open Science Policy Platform has published a series of recommendations on how this might be done, and encourages their adoption by all stakeholder communities across the research process.

A thoughtful and practical piece about an issue that is often bemoaned (the perverse impact of the pressure to publish) without useful alternatives. Such a change would be in the best interest of us all.

I have written before about the European Commission’s Open Science Policy Platform (OSPP), and our aims and areas of focus. Previously I focused on metrics and evaluation, and the need for incentives and associated recognition and rewards to both enable and encourage researchers to adopt more open practices for the benefit of research and society. This needs the buy-in of stakeholders across the spectrum. As Chair of the Next-Generation Metrics working group (previously named Altmetrics working group), whose recommendations are published today, I’d like to provide my personal view on the role the EC – and other funding agencies and research-performing institutions – could play in driving real action and change.
.

At F1000, we hear time and again from researchers keen to break with traditional publishing models, and from the proxies the journals they publish in provide for the evaluation of their work, but who fear negative consequences for their future funding and careers. At a debate on peer review in September, Meghan Larin, Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Francis Crick Institute, spoke about the frustrations she and her peers face when trying to publish in the “right” journals to progress their careers. We also frequently hear from researchers across disciplines whose contributions to research include outputs beyond traditional article formats, such as data or software code, but who struggle to receive credit for those contributions.
.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

0