1. Is peer review bad for your mental health?
Amidst fears of a mental health crisis in higher education, to what extent is the peer review process a contributing factor? It's a process fraught with uncertainty, as authors try to forge something constructive from often mixed feedback or occasionally downright unhelpful comments. In her post in the LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog, Helen Kara stresses the importance of being aware of the effects of uncertainty and taking steps to reduce its impact.
The blog post says (quote): There is a body of research which demonstrates that uncertainty has a detrimental effect on mental health. We are hearing a lot about the mental health crisis in higher education, but nobody seems to be talking about the potential contribution of the peer review system to this crisis. Given the evidence of links between uncertainty and mental health, it seems likely that there may be a relationship here. Time spent waiting for reviews also has a positive effect, in that it creates necessary distance between the author and their work, meaning sensible revisions are easier to make. But we need to be aware of the effects of uncertainty and take steps to reduce its impact on us………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Publishers cannot afford to be coy about ethical breaches
Publishers will claim that they safeguard research quality by providing a level of editorial scrutiny that keeps poor scholarship out of journals. Reluctance to shame those who breach editorial ethics has dented confidence in research integrity, argue Adam Cox, Russell Craig and Dennis Tourish, in their post in the Times Higher Education Blog.
The blog post says (quote): The publisher of a journal retracting a paper for research malpractice should be obliged to alert other journals that have published papers by the same authors. In egregious cases, such as those involving data fabrication, those journals' editors should be required to audit the papers. Relatedly, publishers should require submitting authors to make their data available in a way that facilitates inspection, re-analysis and replication. This would act as a bulwark against data fraud and poor statistical analysis. Such a requirement is reasonably widespread in the physical and life sciences, but it still tends to be confined to the top echelon of journals in economics. This may help explain why we found no articles retracted because of data fabrication………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Paper Accepted…Unless the Letter Was Forged
A new kind of predator is taking advantage of unsuspecting authors. In her post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, Angela Cochran discusses the forged acceptance letters received and what publishers can do to help authors avoid this costly and embarrassing pitfall.
The blog post says (quote): So what's the damage to a specific journal? Nothing really, except that someone is promising acceptance in the journal and misrepresenting a relationship with ASCE. This certainly is not the only way journal titles get co-opted to benefit some other group. They regularly find conferences that advertise that the top 10 papers submitted to the meeting will be sent to one of their journals. They may eventually get an email with a zip file containing 10 papers from a conference organiser that they turn away. It is possible to attempt some legal action against individuals or organisations co-opting journal titles for these purposes. If you can track down the original perpetrator, step one might be to send a cease and desist letter, which has a high likelihood of being ignored………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. New EFI feature gives you more control over your institution's Altmetric data
Altmetric's new CSV Uploader tool quickly and easily walks EFI administrators through the process of updating their institution's data in Altmetric using comma separated value (CSV) spreadsheet files containing their publications and department data. Stacy Konkiel, in her post in the Altmetric Blog, notes that updating the Altmetric Explorer for Institutions (EFI) instance without a Research Information Management System just got a whole lot easier.
The blog post says (quote): Institutional repositories and Research Information Management System like Symplectic Elements have historically been the most common ways to add data to Altmetric Explorer for Institutions. But not everyone has these kinds of platforms, which is why they have allowed users to send their data in CSV spreadsheets for some time now. Unlike systems like Symplectic Elements, CSV integrations do not update automatically, and they have historically run quarterly updates. Altmetric wanted users to have the option to make updates more often and to have more control over their own data. CSV Uploader allows customers to add departmental and publication data to EFI in minutes. The CSV Uploader is also "intelligent", helping users verify and correct their institution's data before it gets uploaded to EFI………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply