Tag: Ethics In Scholarly Communication

A statistical fix for the replication crisis in science [Originally published in The Conversation in October/2017]

How should we evaluate initial claims of a scientific discovery? Here’s is a new idea: Only P-values less than 0.005 should be considered statistically significant. P-values between 0.005 and 0.05 should merely be called suggestive, but statistical significance should not serve as a bright-line threshold for publication. Read More →

We have the technology to save peer review – now it is up to our communities to implement it [Originally published in LSE Impact of Social Sciences blog in September/2017]

There has been an explosion in innovation and experimentation in peer review in the last five years. While the ideal of peer review is still needed, it is its implementation, and the present lack of any viable alternative, that must be looked at for improvement, based on three core traits that underpin any viable peer-review system: quality control and moderation, performance and engagement incentives, and certification and reputation. Read More →

What will peer review be like in 2030?

Although the scientific literature has always been reviewed before it was published, current forms of peer review are only a few decades old and from the outset have been subjected to criticism and limitations. Open review and preprints servers have emerged in recent years as possible solutions in a world of growing communication in scientific research. Open reviews, artificial intelligence, collaborative and “cloud” reviews… what will peer review be like in 2030? Read More →

Editorial ethics – other types of plagiarism… and counting

Plagiarism and fraud multiply in a variety of ways. Recently two less frequent types have come up – accidental plagiarism and referee plagiarism. In any case, plagiarism is an ethical breach that erodes public confidence and we must prevent it. Read More →

The editors’ role on peer review: how to identify bad referees

A theoretical peer-review model assesses the effects of referees’ unethical conduct on approving and rejecting articles and how journal editors can mitigate this behavior. What is at stake is the reliability, transparency and efficiency of pre-publication peer review. Read More →

Assessment of reproducibility in research results leads to more questions than answers

The ‘Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology’ initiative that has the purpose of assessing the reproducibility of preclinical research in Oncology was launched in 2013 as the result of a collaboration between the Center for Open Science and Science Exchange. The first results of the replication studies have just been published, however, their interpretation requires a careful approach. Read More →

On the immediate rejection of manuscripts without external peer review

Not all texts received by scientific journals are sent to external evaluation. The arbitration process in the double blind system implies a high liability for editors and reviewers, and the burden of this process ends up expressed in a lengthy evaluation process, with direct effects on authors (who wait too long to receive a decision) and on readers (that may have access to delayed data). We used some data on the management of Revista de Sociologia e Política to think about the benefits and losses by rejecting original articles based on preliminary analysis by the editors (desk review evaluation), without requiring reviews issued by referees external to the editorial board. Read More →

Open Access reviewed: stricter criteria preserve credibility

The most comprehensive index of open access journals, the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), reviewed its inclusion criteria, in view of allegations of the presence of predatory journals. This restructuring will lead to more than 3,000 journals to be removed from the database. DOAJ, besides advocating Open Access, established, in collaboration with COPE, OASPA and WAME, a code of principles and good practices in scientific publishing. Read More →

Reproducibility in research results: the challenges of attributing reliability

Recently projects have been developed with the aim to reproduce published research results in psychology, biology and economics to verify their reliability. The results indicate different degrees of reproducibility in each area, however, they served to alert the scientific community about how fragile results considered irrefutable can be and reflect on the role of science in self-correcting. Read More →

May excessive transparency damage Science?

The scholarly community promoted and encouraged research transparency to curb the lack of reproducibility and scientific misconduct. However, this openness also opens room for attacks and harassment of researchers, often motivated by simple discrepancy between the results and even threats of physical and psychological violence. Learn how to recognize and protect yourself from attacks of this nature. Read More →

Taking open access one step further: The role of SciELO in the global publication landscape [originally published in Editage Insights]

In this conversation, Abel Packer traces SciELO Program’s growth and talks about the gap in publication standards and processes between developed and developing countries. He also emphasizes the importance of establishing sustainable open access publication models. [Available only in English] Read More →

France prepares bill to regulate open access

France is preparing a bill to regulate open access to scientific research results financed with public funds. The text of the law, however, does not agree with what the National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) believes it benefits the scientific community, the French and the world society. The project is available for public consultation and any Internet user can suggest changes that will impact on the way research is conveyed digitally. Your feedback is very important, vote you too. Read More →

The BMJ requires data sharing to publish clinical trials

Increased publication of clinical trial outcomes has been promoted by regional and global initiatives in order to increase transparency, reproducibility and reliability of the assays. The BMJ follows this movement, becoming the first journal to require availability of individual patient data, anonymously and upon request, as a prerequisite for publication. Read More →

Rebuttal to the blog post “Is SciELO a Publication Favela?” authored by Jeffrey Beall

Editors of scientific journals sign note of rejection to Mr. Jeffrey Beall’s attempt of freely depreciate the successful image of SciELO. Read the note here http://peloscielo.org/#en. Read More →

Open Access in Latin America: a paragon for the rest of the world [Originally published in the SPARC blog]

Manifesto signed by scholars and representatives of pro-open access associations, published on the website of the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition – SPARC, repudiates the ideas advocated by Jeffrey Beall disqualifying SciELO (and Redalyc) in favor of control over journals by large commercial publishers. The manifesto states that open access is exemplary in Latin America. Read More →