1. Guest post — Unethical practices in research and publishing: evidence from Russia
Author: Anna Abalkina
Thousands of Russian scholars were happy to receive good news in 2020: their articles were accepted for publication in international journals. However, such joy can hardly be sustained because many of the papers were, in fact, published in predatory or hijacked journals with poor or even no peer review, according to estimation based on a list of deceptive journals (https://kpfran.ru/wp-content/uploads/plagiarism-by-translation-2.pdf) created by the Russian Academy of Sciences in 2020. This list tracks deceptive and dishonest behaviors including purchased author credentials, plagiarism, and false claims of peer review. Many of the journals on the list had been dropped from Scopus and Web of Science by the end of 2020.
The full entry can be read: Here.
2. CCC’s RightsLink® for Scientific Communications increases awareness of available open access publication funding upon manuscript submission
Author: Copyright Clearance Center
Copyright Clearance Center announces new functionality in RightsLink® for Scientific Communications (RLSC) (https://www.copyright.com/publishers/rightslink-scientific/), its market-leading, comprehensive scholarly communications workflow solution. RLSC now can inform authors of available Open Access (OA) publication funding throughout the manuscript lifecycle, starting with submission. Leading submission platforms such as those offered by CCC partners Aries, ScholarOne and eJournal Press, enable authors to preview Article Processing Charges (APCs) that may be due upon manuscript acceptance. Now, leveraging RLSC’s agreement management capabilities, authors can see a list of possible funding sources for paying those fees based on publisher agreements with institutions, consortia or funders.
The full entry can be read: Here.
3. Can a digital management tool encourage best practice in research?Author: Paul Lynch
US President Joe Biden has reaffirmed a national commitment to integrity in scholarship and research, appointing scientists to numerous leadership roles. A growing number of UK universities are on a path to support greater intellectual integrity in research and science and recognise that it will take the combined effort of students, teachers and research leaders to instigate this cultural change. ‘Ethics Monitor’ is a tool that digitises the ethics applications across the university. Ethical standards in universities are the backbone of research integrity and the digital tool will help to embed appropriate practice.
The full entry can be read: Here.
4. Against research waste – How the Evidence-Based Research paradigm promotes more ethical and innovative researchAuthor: Caroline Blaine, Klara Brunnhuber and Hans Lund
With notable negative impacts in clinical research, large numbers of studies simply replicate findings that have previously been confirmed. Caroline Blaine, Klara Brunnhuber and Hans Lund suggest that much of this waste could be averted with a more structured and careful approach to systematic reviews and propose Evidence-Based Research (EBR) as a framework for achieving this. Just promoting the use of systematic reviews is not enough. The EBR approach provides a framework (https://www.bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i5440.long) that emphasises systematic reviews as a generative part of the research process, rather than a simple box ticking exercise, thereby improving research integrity.
The full entry can be read: Here.
5. Changing Journal Impact Factor rules creates unfair playing field for someAuthor: Phil Davis
Transitioning to a model that counts publication based on the date of online publication — instead of print publication — will inflate the next round of Journal Impact Factor (JIF) scores. The JIF calculation is based on the calendar year of publication. journals with high levels of self-citation and long lag times between e-publication and print designation are particularly sensitive to massive shifts in their next JIF score. However, even journals with relatively low self-citation rates and short publication lags are affected enough to shift their ranking above competitors who do not have any e-publication data in the Web of Science.
The full entry can be read: Here.
Leave a Reply