1. Mind the Gap: Gender Disparity in Scholarly Publishing Revisited
The gender disparity at the top of scholarly publishing - and scholarly communications - is well documented. A recent article in Learned Publishing, discussed during an informal panel session at this year's SSP conference, shows that not only are women under-represented at the top of our organizations, but also as speakers at our industry conferences. At seven major meetings in 2015, men represented on average over 60% of speakers and nearly two thirds of keynotes, and all male panels prevailed, notes Alice Meadows, in her post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Which brings us to our industry organizations. What is – or should be - their role in addressing the gender gap? The audience and panel at SSP were unanimous in believing that our industry organizations could (and should) play more of a part, since they exist in part to help ensure that our industry is strong and sustainable – something that is threatened by a continuing gender disparity at the top. While our industry membership organizations don't always get involved in lobbying or advocacy, it was underscored that what was being discussed was a business best practice, and not a political stance……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Divided We Fall - How a Fragmented Media Space Affects Academia and Scholarly Publishing
The general fragmentation of media and society has profound implications, and may explain to some extent the fragmentation being seen in higher education and scholarly publishing. In his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, Kent Anderson discusses how a fragmented media space affects academia and scholarly publishing.
The blog post says (quote): The political life of Americans is similarly affected by a fragmented media, with some speculating that the media's inability to confront the worrisome candidacy of Donald Trump comes from their co-dependence on him - that is, the media is so weak and fragmented that few outlets have the power or resources to ignore, upset, or attack him. Those that do are fighting for time in a confetti storm of other media. Many feel so vulnerable that any slip in ratings or ceding of ground to a competitor may be a fatal misstep. Sensing fragmentation provides cover, Trump works the phones to keep his media vassals dependent on him and to spread his appearances across so many outlets that he is hard to pin down……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. We need more solution-oriented social science: on changing our frames of reference and tackling big social problems.
Solution-oriented social science makes solving problems the object of social science, and working on other people's problems becomes the key driver of the problems to be solved. These solutions may be of relevance for everyday citizens or actors working in government, non-profits, or for-profits. In his post in The Impact Blog, Mark Western argues that approaching research in this way would influence how we choose problems, how we build teams and collaborate, and what methods, tools and techniques we employ.
The blog post says (quote): One of the great strengths of the social sciences is their ability to systematically identify and analyse problems. In doing this they help us understand and explain the world. Outside social science, though, people are often more interested in solutions than problems. Understanding a problem is just the first step to finding a solution. I believe social scientists need to recognise that problem-oriented social science needs to be complemented by more solution-oriented social science. By solution-oriented social science I mean social science that produces meaningful solutions - knowledge, services and products – for others, while also advancing our scholarly fields. If we focus more extensively on solution-oriented social science, we will increase the reach of the social sciences, and we will create social science that is exciting, meaningful and transformative……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. Information design matters
How to convey information was an emerging theme of the Council of Science Editors Annual Meeting. This year about 450 professionals responsible for different aspects of scholarly publishing from around the globe met in Denver to debate diverse issues ranging from managing journals, to scientific misconduct and the future of publishing, notes Maria Kowalczuk, in her post in the BioMed Central Blog.
The blog post says (quote): The theme of conveying scientific information in the right way was common to many other conference sessions, from data sharing and pre-print servers to discussing ethical issues and how to make retractions more visible. The topic of pre-prints was hotly debated, and opinions varied on whether material posted on pre-print servers should be considered as already published, and whether the comments and feedback that the authors receive via that route are a form of peer review. At one end of the scale, journals such as eLife and PLOS support pre-prints with specialized workflows, while at the other extreme are journals that will not consider manuscripts posted on pre-print servers. BioMed Central journals also consider manuscripts that were posted on pre-print servers……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
5. The Rise and Value of Mentorship Programs in Scholarly Communications and Publishing
The Society for Scholarly Publishing (SSP) recently awarded 12 one-year Fellowships to students and early-career professionals. The Fellowship Program, an extension of the former Travel Grant Program, offers a wide range of career development and nurturing opportunities for students and early-career professionals in the scholarly communication industry. Adrian Stanley, in his guest post in the Digital Science Blog, talks about the benefits include training opportunities, SSP membership, participation in community forums and SSP committees, and an assigned industry expert as mentor.
The blog post says (quote): Publishing is in a time of deep transition and innovation, we see from within Digital Science how we have helped amazing founders and their staff grow and develop with their products, in the process, changing the way researchers and publishers think. Many of these start-up companies, which have completely changed the landscape, are 5 or less years old. It’s never been more important to look out for the people who will be future leaders, the innovators, as they will be the ones who shape the development of scholarly publishing through future decades……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
6. Getting bias out of peer review is still a struggle
Implicit biases are unconscious attitudes or stereotypes that affect how we perceive others; they sometimes run contrary to our conscious beliefs. Employers and law enforcement officers have faced criticism about implicit bias in the hiring of new employees and arresting of potential criminals. Roheeni Saxena, in her post in the Ars Technica Blog, discusses a recent AAAS initiative that looks into the role of implicit biases in the scientific review processes.
The blog post says (quote): At the AAAS forum, journal editors presented evidence of a US-centric bias in scientific publication. Countries with fewer resources tend to be poorly represented among reviewers, and therefore may receive less attention from publishers. The editors also showed that, even though some Asian countries submit a large number of manuscripts for consideration, they tend to be underrepresented in terms of successful publications. Publications appear to be somewhat better in terms of gender-related biases in publication rates, yet women are still poorly represented among journal editors and peer reviewers……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply