Tag: Research Evaluation

Book Review: Bit by Bit: Social Research in the Digital Age by Matthew J. Salganik [Originally published in LSE Impact of Social Sciences blog in July/2018]

In Bit by Bit: Social Research in the Digital Age, Matthew J. Salganik explores the process of undertaking social research in the digital era, examining a wide range of concepts while also offering teaching activities and materials. In bringing together the expertise of social and data scientists to the benefit of both, this is a comprehensive overview of new approaches to social research in our time, recommends Marziyeh Ebrahimi. Read More →

Scientific-public interface in times of correction of scientific literature: Contemporary ethical issues

The process of correcting scientific literature becomes increasingly accelerated and reflects, among several factors, a greater scrutiny by scientific publishers. Unlike what happened about two decades ago, when retracting an article was rare, today it has been integrated into the editorial culture. In this context, the way in which this correction process is articulated with the news flow about science deserves attention. In the science-public interface, retractions broaden the spaces to strengthen public understanding about science and its mechanisms of self-regulation. How to extend this space is one of the ethical discussions of our time. Read More →

What does a new approach mean (for journals, research councils)?

Preprints are a development underway in science communication and publishing. For journals, this has consequences. They may adopt a passive role, an opposing stance, or an encouraging, stimulating role, and see it as an opportunity, placing their journal in the midst of the preprint development. These are issues to be discussed in detail at the SciELO 20 Years Conference in September 2018. Read More →

eLife tests out an innovative approach in peer review

The journal eLife is conducting an innovative experiment by accepting all articles sent to peer review after initial screening. To test the feasibility of an even more participative peer review process, authors will be able to control the decision whether to publish (or not) their articles and how they will respond to reviewers’ comments. By breaking with the paradigms of the author-editor-reviewer relationship, eLife aims to promote a constructive dialogue between the parties and reduce the burden of the journals’ prestige in research evaluation. Read More →

How long does it take to do science? The emergence of time in scholarly communication

Scholarly communication has undergone great transformations in the last two decades, mainly due to the popularization of new information technologies, which imposes a new regime of time and speed in scientific publishing. However, these changes are not just responses to technological advances. These are more complex issues related to the reconfiguration of academic work and changes on the paradigm of communication and the difficulties and challenges faced by editors and researchers over time management. Read More →

Communication and peer review should be universally separated

The SciELO 20 Years Week will promote an ample and open forum on the future of scientific communication and journals. There is a discussion group for each topic of the SciELO 20 Years Conference. The discussion starts with this comment by Jan Velterop on the separation between communication and peer review posted in the discussion group of the Panel 3.1 that deals with fast communication via preprints and other means to accelerate the availability of research results. Read More →

Open peer review perspectives: a thought-provoking question mark

Research analyzes the feasibility of adopting Open Peer Review by Information Science journals. This post presents the first step already completed focusing on the editors. The second stage, already underway, is focused on referees in order to reach a comprehensive view on the adoption of Open Peer Review by Information Science journals. Read More →

Authorship criteria preserve scholarly communication integrity

The increasing demand for transparency and openness in research and its communication aims to increase the reliability and reproducibility of published results. The attribution of authorship, due to its relevance in the academic processes of evaluation and reward, requires commitment, transparency and clearly defined rules. A group of researchers comprised of scholars, research institutions, funding agencies, publishers and scientific societies developed a taxonomy with 14 categories to classify authors’ contributions. Linking the categories of this taxonomy to the author’s persistent digital identifier (ORCID) and article metadata allows to track authors’ contributions through their publications and their careers. Read More →

Radiography of open access academic publishing and its bibliometric indicators

How does open access publishing evolves over time? Is it true that open access papers get more citations? Is open access increasing due to institutional or government mandates or at the initiative of authors themselves? To answer these and other questions, the US National Science Foundation commissioned Science-Metrix a detailed study on open access academic publishing, considering the gold route and the green route, the influence of the areas and the behavior of the research leading countries over the last decade. Here are the results. Read More →

Quantity does matter as citation impact increases with productivity [Originally published in LSE Impact of Social Sciences blog in January/2018]

Many scholars are encouraged to focus on the quality not the quantity of their publications, the rationale being that becoming too focused on productivity risks reducing the quality of one’s work. But is this, in fact, the case? Peter van den Besselaar and Ulf Sandström have studied a large sample of researchers and found that, while results vary by field, there is a positive and stronger than linear relationship between productivity and quality (in terms of the top cited papers). This same pattern appears to apply to institutions as well as individual researchers. Read More →

Towards open science, Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz welcome submission of preprint manuscripts

Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz is now accepting submission of manuscripts that are in preprint format. This decision follows the recent initiative by SciELO in launching a preprint service and it is aligned to the global movement of open science. This new modality of dissemination of scientific research results will break paradigms and certainly change the way science is measured today. It represents a small step for editors, but a huge leap in scientific communication for society. Read More →

The time has come for the quality journals of Brazil

Policies, programs and research projects are expected to leverage journals of Brazil which will contribute to widening the recognition and qualification of Brazilian science in its scientific and social dimensions, beyond the classic bibliometric ranking of journals which influences researchers, academic institutions, journals and funding agencies. Read More →

Collaboration and concerted action are key to making open data a reality [Originally published in LSE Impact of Social Sciences blog in October/2017]

The case for open data is increasingly inarguable. Improved data practice can help to address concerns about reproducibility and research integrity, reducing fraud and improving patient outcomes, for example. Research also shows good data practice can lead to improved productivity and increased citations. However, as Grace Baynes reports, recent survey data shows that while the research community recognises the value of open data, uptake remains slow, with good data practice and data sharing far from the status quo. To effect change, government, funders, institutions, publishers, and researchers themselves all have an important role to play. Read More →

Some ideas about Brazilian postgraduation

The level of both master’s and doctoral courses in Brazil can be improved by introducing new disciplines that focus on the “formation” of the student rather than “information”. Read More →

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 →