Publishing research outputs and refereeing journals

Transcription

1 1/30 Publishing research outputs and refereeing journals Joel Reyes Noche Ateneo de Naga University Council of Deans and Department Chairs of Colleges of Arts and Sciences Region V General Assembly and Research Forum University of Nueva Caceres, Naga City July 13, 2015

2 2/30 Academic journals Citation impact Citation indices Open access Academic publishing Scholarly peer review COPE guidelines on good publication practice Glossary of retractions Suggested websites References Slides with citations in the heading contain direct quotes.

3 Academic journals Citation impact 3/30 Citation impact Citation counts (Wikipedia, 2015b) for an individual article (how often it was cited) an author (total citations, or average citation count per article) a journal (average citation count for the articles in the journal) are sometimes used as an indicator of relative importance.

4 Academic journals Citation impact 4/30 The h-index is an index that attempts to measure both the productivity and citation impact of the published body of work of a scientist or scholar. (Wikipedia, 2015c) [A] scholar with an index of h has published h papers each of which has been cited in other papers at least h times. (Wikipedia, 2015c) The impact factor of an academic journal is a measure reflecting the average number of citations to recent articles published in that journal. (Wikipedia, 2015d) In any given year, the impact factor of a journal is the average number of citations received per paper published in that journal during the two preceding years. (Wikipedia, 2015d)

5 Academic journals Citation indices 5/30 Citation indices A citation index is a bibliographic database of citations among publications. Are available by subscription and cover only high quality journals: Thomson Reuters Web of Science ( previously known as Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Elsevier s Scopus ( Are freely available online but do not screen articles for quality: CiteSeer X ( Google Scholar (

6 Academic journals Citation indices 6/30 (Thomson Reuters, 2015) Basic publishing standards (timeliness, international editorial conventions, full text English, peer review) Editorial content International diversity of its authorship Citation data (Elsevier, 2015) Consist of peer-reviewed content and have a publicly available description of the peer review process Be published on a regular basis and have an International Standard Serial Number [...] as registered with the ISSN International Centre Have content that is relevant for and readable by an international audience, meaning: have references in Roman script and have English language abstracts and titles Have a publicly available publication ethics and publication malpractice statement

7 Academic journals Open access 7/30 Open access Unrestricted online access to peer-reviewed scholarly research It comes in two degrees (Wikipedia, 2014a): gratis: Users are able to access and use the article texts, without a price-barrier. libre: Users are allowed allowed to modify and re-use the article texts, without a permission barrier. It can be provided in two ways (Wikipedia, 2014b): gold: Authors publish in open access journals, which provide immediate open access to all of their articles, usually on the publisher s website. green: Authors publish in any journal and then self-archive a version of the article for gratis public use in an open access website. An open access journal is one that uses a funding model that does not charge readers or their institutions for access (DOAJ, 2014).

8 Academic journals Open access 8/30 Philippine journals available online U.P. Diliman Journals Online (28 journals) ( Ateneo de Manila University Journals Online (7 journals) ( AdNU Open Journal System (2 journals) ( Philippine Journals Online (43 journals) ( Philippine E-Journals (122 journals) (

9 Academic publishing 9/30 Academic publishing (Wikipedia, 2015a) In academic publishing, a paper is an academic work that is usually published in an academic journal. It contains original research results or reviews existing results. Such a paper, also called an article, will only be considered valid if it undergoes a process of peer review by one or more referees (who are academics in the same field) who check that the content of the paper is suitable for publication in the journal. A paper may undergo a series of reviews, revisions and re-submissions before finally being accepted or rejected for publication. This process typically takes several months.

10 Academic publishing 10/30 Academic publishing (Wikipedia, 2015a) Next there is often a delay of many months (or in some subjects, over a year) before an accepted manuscript appears. This is particularly true for the most popular journals where the number of accepted articles often outnumbers the space for printing. Due to this, many academics self-archive a pre-print copy of their paper for free download from their personal or institutional website.

11 Academic publishing Scholarly peer review 11/30 Scholarly peer review (Wikipedia, 2015e) Scholarly peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author s scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal or as a book. The peer review helps the publisher [decide] whether the work should be accepted, considered acceptable with revisions, or rejected. Peer review requires a community of experts in a given [...] field, who are qualified and able to perform reasonably impartial review. [...]

12 Academic publishing Scholarly peer review 12/30 Scholarly peer review (Wikipedia, 2015e) Peer review is generally considered necessary to academic quality and is used in most major scientific journals, but does by no means prevent publication of all invalid research. Traditionally, peer reviewers have been anonymous, but there are currently a significant amount of open peer review, where the comments are visible to readers, generally with the identities of the peer reviewers disclosed as well.

13 Academic publishing COPE guidelines on good publication practice 13/30 COPE guidelines on good publication practice The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) was founded in 1997 to address breaches of research and publication ethics. A voluntary body providing a discussion forum and advice for scientific editors, it aims to find practical ways of dealing with the issues, and to develop good practice. The 2003 COPE Report (COPE, 2005) is no longer available at their website ( and has been replaced by a set of more specific guidelines.

14 Academic publishing COPE guidelines on good publication practice 14/30 COPE guidelines on good publication practice (COPE, 2005) Study design and ethical approval Good research should be well justified, well planned, appropriately designed, and ethically approved. To conduct research to a lower standard may constitute misconduct. Data analysis Data should be appropriately analysed, but inappropriate analysis does not necessarily amount to misconduct. Fabrication and falsification of data do constitute misconduct. Authorship There is no universally agreed definition of authorship, although attempts have been made [...]. As a minimum, authors should take responsibility for a particular section of the study.

15 Academic publishing COPE guidelines on good publication practice 15/30 COPE guidelines on good publication practice (COPE, 2005) Conflicts of interest Conflicts of interest arise when authors, reviewers, or editors have interests that are not fully apparent and that may influence their judgements on what is published. They have been described as those which, when revealed later, would make a reasonable reader feel misled or deceived. They may be personal, commercial, political, academic or financial. Financial interests may include employment, research funding, stock or share ownership, payment for lectures or travel, consultancies and company support for staff.

16 Academic publishing COPE guidelines on good publication practice 16/30 COPE guidelines on good publication practice (COPE, 2005) Peer review Definition Peer reviewers are external experts chosen by editors to provide written opinions, with the aim of improving the study. Working methods vary from journal to journal, but some use open procedures in which the name of the reviewer is disclosed, together with the full or edited report.

17 Academic publishing COPE guidelines on good publication practice 17/30 COPE guidelines on good publication practice (COPE, 2005) Action 1. Suggestions from authors as to who might act as reviewers are often useful, but there should be no obligation on editors to use those suggested. 2. The duty of confidentiality in the assessment of a manuscript must be maintained by expert reviewers, and this extends to reviewers colleagues who may be asked (with the editors permission) to give opinions on specific sections. 3. The submitted manuscript should not be retained or copied. 4. Reviewers and editors should not make any use of the data, arguments, or interpretations, unless they have the authors permission.

18 Academic publishing COPE guidelines on good publication practice 18/30 COPE guidelines on good publication practice (COPE, 2005) Action 5. Reviewers should provide speedy, accurate, courteous, unbiased and justifiable reports. 6. If reviewers suspect misconduct, they should write in confidence to the editor. 7. Journals should publish accurate descriptions of their peer review, selection, and appeals processes. 8. Journals should also provide regular audits of their acceptance rates and publication times.

19 Academic publishing COPE guidelines on good publication practice 19/30 COPE guidelines on good publication practice (COPE, 2005) Redundant publication Redundant publication occurs when two or more papers, without full cross reference, share the same hypothesis, data, discussion points, or conclusions. Plagiarism Plagiarism ranges from the unreferenced use of others published and unpublished ideas, including research grant applications to submission under new authorship of a complete paper, sometimes in a different language. It may occur at any stage of planning, research, writing, or publication: it applies to print and electronic versions.

20 Academic publishing COPE guidelines on good publication practice 20/30 COPE guidelines on good publication practice (COPE, 2005) Duties of editors Editors are the stewards of journals. They usually take over their journal from the previous editor(s) and always want to hand over the journal in good shape. Most editors provide direction for the journal and build a strong management team. They must consider and balance the interests of many constituents, including readers, authors, staff, owners, editorial board members, advertisers and the media.

21 Academic publishing COPE guidelines on good publication practice 21/30 COPE guidelines on good publication practice (COPE, 2005) Media relations Medical research findings are of increasing interest to the print and broadcast media. Journalists may attend scientific meetings at which preliminary research findings are presented, leading to their premature publication in the mass media. Advertising Many scientific journals and meetings derive significant income from advertising. Reprints may also be lucrative.

22 Academic publishing COPE guidelines on good publication practice 22/30 Dealing with misconduct (COPE, 2005) Principles The general principle confirming misconduct is intention to cause others to regard as true that which is not true. The examination of misconduct must therefore focus, not only on the particular act or omission, but also on the intention of the researcher, author, editor, reviewer or publisher involved. Deception may be by intention, by reckless disregard of possible consequences, or by negligence. It is implicit, therefore, that best practice requires complete honesty, with full disclosure. Codes of practice may raise awareness, but can never be exhaustive. Investigating misconduct Serious misconduct Less serious misconduct Sanctions

23 Academic publishing Glossary of retractions 23/30 Glossary of retractions (Gawrylewski, 2007) Correspondence Letters are often an opportunity for peers to raise concerns over the findings of others published in the journal. Errors raised by one author can stem from the inability to replicate findings, given the methods presented in publication. This often results in a response by the original authors, who might clarify the methods or explain, justify, or cast doubt on their own findings. Correspondence includes matters arising. Editor s note A minor point issued by the editor. The editor s note is not common in the major peer-reviewed journals; in most cases it is used when something does not warrant a full editorial at the beginning of an issue.

24 Academic publishing Glossary of retractions 24/30 Glossary of retractions (Gawrylewski, 2007) Editor s warning An issued statement by journal editors eliciting concern over the validity of a given paper or study. This could be induced by suspicions of misconduct. Errata The most common entry in peer-reviewed journals, errata are published corrections issued either by the author(s) of a paper, or by the journal editors. The National Library of Medicine (NLM), which maintains the PubMed database, does not differentiate between errors that originated in the publication process and errors of logic or methodology in the papers themselves. Errata include corrigenda and corrections.

25 Academic publishing Glossary of retractions 25/30 Glossary of retractions (Gawrylewski, 2007) Expression of concern A statement issued by the editor of a peer-reviewed journal, the Expression of Concern (EoC) calls attention to a specific paper, especially to question the validity of that paper or portions of that paper. EoC include editor s warning and expression of concern reaffirmed. Partial retraction The retraction of a portion of a paper, this classification was made official starting at the end of 2006 and is now searchable in Medline.

26 Academic publishing Glossary of retractions 26/30 Glossary of retractions (Gawrylewski, 2007) Retraction This is the formal withdrawal of one or more papers by one or all of the authors. In most circumstances, retraction happens when new findings, or an inability by other groups to replicate results, spur the authors to withdraw a paper. According to the NLMs rules, only one signature is required to retract a paper, given either by the journal editor, one or more of the authors, or the sponsoring research institution (see Retraction Without Permission). The NLM does not differentiate between articles that have been retracted because of honest mistakes in the research process or interpretation, or those that are retracted because of misconduct. While it remains in searchable databases such as Medline, a retracted paper is accompanied by a retraction notice, which one or more authors or editors write, giving the reasons for the retraction.

27 Academic publishing Glossary of retractions 27/30 Glossary of retractions (Gawrylewski, 2007) Retraction without permission The formal withdrawal of one or more papers by a journal editor, the institution where the study took place, or one or more of the papers authors. This type of retraction is distinct from a regular retraction in that one or more parties stands behind the paper and does not agree with the retraction.

28 Academic publishing Suggested websites 28/30 Blogs about academic misconduct Scholarly Open Access: Critical analysis of scholarly open-access publishing ( by Jeffrey Beall contains Beall s List of potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers and journals. Retraction Watch: Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process ( by Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus Copy, Shake, and Paste: A blog about plagiarism and scientific misconduct ( by Debora Weber-Wulff

29 Academic publishing Suggested websites 29/30 Other suggested websites arxiv.org ( is an e-print service in the fields of physics, mathematics, computer science, quantitative biology, quantitative finance and statistics. Academia Stack Exchange ( is a question and answer site for academics of all levels.

30 References 30/30 Committee on Publication Ethics. (2005, June). Guidelines on good publication practice: The COPE report Indian Journal of Pharmacology, 37, Directory of Open Access Journals. (2014). Information for publishers. Retrieved from ([Online; accessed 14-October-2014]) Elsevier. (2015). Content policy and selection. Retrieved from ([Online; accessed 10-July-2015]) Gawrylewski, A. (2007, March). Glossary of retractions. The Scientist, 21(3), Thomson Reuters. (2015). The Thomson Reuters journal selection process. Retrieved from ([Online; accessed 10-July-2015]) Wikipedia. (2014a). Gratis versus libre Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from versus libre&oldid= ([Online; accessed 14-October-2014]) Wikipedia. (2014b). Open access Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from access&oldid= ([Online; accessed 14-October-2014]) Wikipedia. (2015a). Academic publishing Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from publishing&oldid= ([Online; accessed 10-July-2015]) Wikipedia. (2015b). Citation impact Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from impact&oldid= ([Online; accessed 10-July-2015]) Wikipedia. (2015c). H-index Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from ([Online; accessed 11-July-2015]) Wikipedia. (2015d). Impact factor Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from factor&oldid= ([Online; accessed 11-July-2015]) Wikipedia. (2015e). Scholarly peer review Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from peer review&oldid= ([Online; accessed 10-July-2015])