1. Peer review has some problems – but the science community is working on it
Peer review is the central foundation of science. It is a process where scientific results are vetted by academic peers, with publication in a reputable journal qualifying the merits of the work and informing readers of the latest scientific discoveries. But peer review sometimes gets a bad rap – criticised for a purported lack of transparency, low accountability and even poor scientific rigour, discusses Jessica Borger, in her post in The Conversation.
The blog post says (quote): Once under review, an open dialogue between author and reviewers takes place. Upon receipt of reviewers' recommendations, the authors can decide to continue experiments if advised, retract the paper or publish it. This leaves the author's decision to the scrutiny of the general scientific community. This innovation may greatly improve the transparency of open peer review, increase accountability on behalf of all participants and reduce burden on the peer review system. It addresses the three major strategies required for improvement of the peer review system. But is it a step too far, too soon? Time will tell. The overall goal of debates around peer review and appearance of new publication platforms and approaches is to create a united front of authors, reviewers and editors to uphold scientific integrity………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Search Subject Indexes for Targeted Results
Expert subject indexes enable serious researchers to conduct a thorough review of literature with speed and efficiency. The work done by experts in the field to curate and classify materials (journal articles, books, conference proceedings, dissertations, etc.) and develop field-specific controlled vocabularies has tremendous value, discusses a post in the EBSCOpost Blog.
The blog post says (quote): In many cases, indexes were developed by experts in their respective fields who were compelled to streamline academic research on a very targeted topic for a dissertation, for example, that was otherwise onerous and time-consuming. Subject indexes provide controlled vocabularies to guide researchers toward the most targeted, inclusive results. Expert indexes become the means through which the researcher can identify the best content and then link to available full text if it is not contained within the same database………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. An idea to promote research integrity: adding badges to papers where the authors fought against the results being suppressed or sanitised
Just as some journals support open science by adding badges to those research papers for which the authors have shared the data, Adrian Barnett, in his post in the LSE Impact of Social Sciences blog, suggests journals might similarly recognise those authors who uphold research integrity by publishing their results despite attempts at suppression or sanitisation. To do so would require evidence of the attempted suppression but ultimately draw attention to the research findings and help to identify a corpus of papers which could be used to study the problem of suppression.
The blog post says (quote): A badge would draw attention to the paper, which is exactly what those who tried to suppress the paper would not want. It would give the researchers involved a clear reward for upholding research integrity and acknowledge the costs in time and stress. Badges would also create a useful list of papers that could be used to study the problem of research suppression. Many thousands of papers have likely been suppressed and the practice still occurs because of the pressure to provide commercially favourable results. It's likely that the papers that battled to be published have characteristics in common with those papers that were never made public………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. Major progress made in open research but technical and cultural obstacles remain
As Research England's report highlighted, there is a need for greater interoperability between systems. It is not just an intermittent case of "computer says no" – there are real technical obstacles to overcome to create a truly open research culture. Compliance rules around the UK's open access policy are good, but we need more support from vendors, publishers and institutions to make research outcomes truly accessible to the public, says Helen Blanchett, in his post in the Times Higher Education Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Jisc's Publications Router was found to be a well-received service that can ease the manual nature of tracking publications and importing them into institutional repositories. The OA survey that informed the recent report shows that HEIs have a strong need for this service and support Jisc's development of Router, and most intend to use it. That said, the speed at which it is adopted and the benefits that it can bring depend on the willingness of vendors to allow imports into their current research information management systems (CRISs) to collaborate technically, and on the willingness of publishers to supply information. When these stakeholders rally round, Router will have a huge impact on the ability of universities to meet their open access aspirations and also to comply with the REF OA policy more efficiently. Although progress with publishers has been challenging, there are signs that the tide is turning: several key publishers are working with Jisc with a view to sending alerts and content via Publications Router………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply