1. Academics Raise Concerns About Predatory Journals on PubMed
PubMed, the National Library of Medicine’s repository of millions of abstracts and citations, has long been one of the most highly regarded sources for searching biomedical literature. For some members of the scientific community, the presence of predatory journals, publications that tend to churn out low-quality content and engage in unethical publishing practices-has been a pressing concern, discusses Diana Kwon, in her post in The Scientist Blog.
The blog post says (quote): To understand how predatory journals might get into PubMed, it’s important to first recognise the database’s components. PubMed was originally created in 1996 as a public interface to MEDLINE, the National Library of Medicine’s (NLM’s) database of citations and abstracts from selected journals in the medical and the life sciences. While MEDLINE references still make up a majority of articles on PubMed, the second-largest chunk of listed papers now comes from PubMed Central (PMC), an online, freely-accessible archive of articles from journals and publishers with agreements with the NLM, manuscripts from authors complying with funders’ open-access policies, and historical content archived by digitisation projects..........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. If At First You Don’t Succeed … Make Another Response to Plan S?
cOAlition S rebuffed recommendations for continuing hybrid and supporting sister journals. Springer Nature tries again with concept of the “Transformative Publisher,” notes Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe, in her post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): A “Transformative Publisher” would need to commit to continuously increasing the average level of OA uptake across its transformative journal portfolio, at least at the rate permitted by the commitments of research funding bodies, institutions, and consortia. It would do this, firstly, by increasing read and publish transformative deals as they are proven to speed up the transition to OA by significantly increasing OA uptake. Secondly, and fundamental to how this approach would grow supply and increase demand, publishers would leverage their journals portfolio into a catalyst for change. This would apply equally to existing hybrid and subscription journals, including highly selective journals, putting all journals on the road to OA as opposed to the current situation where some can’t even get started.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Mapping the impact of UN Sustainable Development Goals on global research
The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) represent one of the largest and most sustained influences on global research to date. However, charting the effect of these 17 goals on the global research community is a complex task. In his post in the LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog, Martin Szomszor draws on the findings of a recent bibliometric study to produce a ‘citation map’ of sustainability research, which highlights how the UN SDGs have enabled the development of new areas of transdisciplinary and international collaboration in research.
The blog post says (quote): Transdisciplinary research is an important theme of the report. There are many small research areas, such as Water Supply and Sanitation, Poverty and Inequality or Education, Interprofessional Teaching and Volunteer Services, joining the two large domains in the centre of the map. The most diverse clusters in terms of interdisciplinary content are Sustainable Agriculture and Transgenic Crops, Physical Activity and Health, and Ecotourism and Fair Trade. These transdisciplinary topics are often of policy interest because they represent opportunities to use knowledge from one area and apply it in another. Strong connections on the map may confirm or test policy assumptions, while weak connections may point to areas that need development and new policy initiatives.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. Early-career researchers commonly ghostwrite peer reviews. That’s a problem
Journals appear inadvertently to encourage ghostwriting by routinely requiring invited reviewers to keep manuscripts confidential. Principal investigators (PIs) understand that sharing the manuscripts with their trainees likely breaches the journal’s policy. Loath to reveal the deception, they won’t give credit to the other persons who contributed significantly to the process, discusses Beryl Lieff Benderly, in her post in the Science Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Instead of maintaining a rule of confidentiality that is routinely ignored in practice, journals should recognise the reality of widespread, clandestine collaboration by creating and publicising policies that clarify trainees’ roles in reviewing, the article recommends. A journal could, for example, let invited reviewers openly share manuscripts with trainees who contribute ideas or text, with all participants’ names and contributions disclosed when the review is submitted. The authors favour this approach, writing that “adding co-¬reviewer names does not diminish the quality of the peer review report nor does it diminish the important role of the invited reviewer, akin to a senior author on a manuscript.” A journal that does not want junior scientists to contribute could, on the other hand, choose to allow them to read manuscripts for training purposes but restrict writing the review to the invited reviewer. Or a journal could continue to require strict confidentiality. Whatever policy a journal chooses, stating it explicitly and prominently will clarify both ethics and authorship.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
5. European open access plan should hold fast to its ambition
Rebecca Lawrence of open science publisher F1000 urges Plan S drafters to ‘stand their ground’, in advance of a revised proposal due this month. The new draft of Plan S, which is now being coordinated by Robert Kiley of the Wellcome Trust, will be based on a recent public consultation, notes Eanna Kelly, in his post in the Science|Business Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Open access advocates want Plan S, which is backed by a growing number of influential national funding agencies and research charities in Europe and further afield, to keep the ambition shown in the original pitch. The original blueprint for Plan S, masterminded by Robert-Jan Smits, the European Commission’s open access envoy and the initial driving force, sets out a number of criteria journals must meet before participating funders permit research they pay for to be published in them. Some rules concern editorial policy, such as that journals must allow authors to retain copyright. Researchers supported by the Plan S funders must publish their results either in open access journals, or, if they choose another publishing route, make a near-final copy of the manuscript available in an approved open repository. Publishing charges will be met by funders or universities, rather than authors, with the draft promising a ‘fair’ cap on these charges. Other requirements cover technical issues. For example, journals must provide full text in machine-readable formats, such as XML, to allow for text and data mining. Publishers of high-profile subscription journals say they cannot comply with Plan S unless some of the draft rules are changed.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply