Tag: Research Evaluation

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 →

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 →

The Center for Open Science, alternative to Elsevier, announces new preprint services [Originally published in Ithaka S+R blog in August/2017]

As commercial providers buy and build their way into the institutional repository and preprint marketplace, the not-for-profit Center for Open Science (COS) is offering an alternative by expanding what it calls the preprint services it powers through its platform. Read More →

Science is largely a collective enterprise. That collectivity needs to be recognized more explicitly

There is a disconnect between the collective nature of science, and the way the publishing and scholarly credit and reward systems focus very strongly on individual achievements. This results in problems that affect not only science, but society’s trust in science, and thus society as a whole. 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 →