Module 3: Scholarly Communication

Transcription

1 Module 3: Scholarly Communication Dias 1

2 Content of Module 3: Scholarly Communication Lectures (approx minutes) 7. Elements of Scholarly Publishing: Authorship and Buzzing topic 8. Understanding and Performing Peer Review 9. How to Publish as Open Access and in Social Media Buzzing topic (approx. 2 minutes) With your peer (i.e. the one next to you). Takeaway Exercise C (exactly 30 minutes) Dias 2

3 Lecture 7: Elements of Scholarly Publishing and Authorship Lecture (approx. 30 minutes) 1. The functions of Scholarly Publishing 2. The Paradigm: Scientific Journals 3. A brief history of quality control in publishing 4. Rôles in the publication process 5. You, the Author 6. Attributing authorship 7. Elements of publication strategy 8. Summary Dias 3

4 Lecture 7: Elements of Scholarly Publishing and Authorship If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants. (Sir Isaac Newton in a letter to Robert Hooke, 1676) Dias 4

5 1. The functions of Scholarly Publishing Advances in research is rarely made by a single researcher or a scientific paper is made by many scientists reviewing and discussing the scientific findings and the scholarly literature Four classic functions of scholarly literature 1. dissemination of (current) knowledge 2. archiving of the canonical knowledge base 3. quality control of published information Peer Review 4. assignment of priority and credit to the authors. To enable and qualify scholarly communication Three principles of scholarly communication To communicate observations to others To conduct further research based on those observations To create a scientific record. Dias 5

6 2. The Paradigme: Scholarly journals Scholarly Communication to peers Author(s) Editor(s) Referee(s) (peers) Non-peer technical step Reader(s) (peers) Basic task of the Editor Should a manuscript be published or not? And should the manuscript be improved before publication? The Editor s challenges Workload Diversity of opinion Limited expertise Dias 6

7 4. Rôles in the publication process: The Editor During the pre-publication process, it s the job of the Editor to Perform the initial review of the submitted manuscript Select the referee(s) / peer reviewers Handle communication between author(s) and referee(s) Ensuring open and balanced communication Disclose conflict of interests / biases Keeping track of time and deadlines Evaluate based on referee report - Final Call: Publish or perish! Accept, with or without editorial revisions Invite the authors to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before a final decision is reached Reject, but indicate to the authors that further work might justify a resubmission Reject outright Dias 7

8 4. Responsibility of the Editor The Singapore Guidelines (2010): Editors are accountable and should take responsibility for everything they publish Editors should guard the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct Editors should pursue reviewer and editorial misconduct Editors should have appropriate policies in place for handling editorial misconduct Dias 8

9 4. Rôles in the publication process: The Referee During the pre-publication process, the Referee(s) must Decline / accept task to review Suggest an extension of the deadline [optional] Communicate with Editor and corresponding author [optional] Evaluate manuscript = peer review Assess the scholarly merit of the manuscript Is it scientific, new, original, relevant, readable Reproduce the authors arguments or experiments [optional] Request additional material [optional] Revisit the improved manuscript and write a new report [if relevant] Write a Referee Report that concludes unconditionally accept the manuscript accept the manuscript if improved it in certain ways reject the manuscript, but encourage revision and invite resubmission reject the manuscript Dias 9

10 5. You, the Author Authoring is The process of creating the content of a document or other content item. Authors shall not lie, steal or cheat: Fabrication Falsification Plagiarism Publish unethical research Author as ghost, guest and gift Undeclare conflicts of interest Author selectiveley, duplicats or redundantly therefore Peer Review and other preventive mechanisms shall fall upon you! Authorship is The art, state, occupation or profession as part of which you are authoring. A part of Scholarship: How to communicate the results of scholarly work, establish priority for discoveries, and build reputation among peers. Is attributed to an individual scholar according to a common set of rules. Dias 10

11 6. Vancouver rules for attributing authorship Authorship credit should be based only on substantial contributions to 1) conception and design, or analysis and interpretation of data; and to 2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and on 3) final approval of the version to be published. Conditions 1, 2, and 3 must all be met! Participation solely in the acquisition of funding or the collection of data does not justify authorship! General supervision of the research group is not sufficient for authorship. Any part of an article critical to its main conclusions must be the responsibility of at least one author (typically the corresponding author). Dias 11

12 7. Elements of publication strategy Basic considerations before publishing should I publish this / or should this be published at all? should I publish this now? what are my goals in publishing this? which type of publication should I choose to reach my goals? how are your co-authors and co-workers? Typical considerations when selecting a journal / series / publisher: Subject and topical aims of the journal (if any) Journal s main audience? Do you yourself read articles from this journal? Is it peer-reviewed? Perceived journal impact? E.g. Impact Factor Is the journal ranked on the Danish BFI Authority List? How quick is the process of acceptance and publication? Who are the Editor(s) and the editorial board? Past or perceived experience, with e.g. the journals referees? Publication fee?. Dias 12

13 7. Rôles in the publication process: The Author(s) AFTER performing the main body of research and authoring: During the publication process, the author(s) must Initial Phase Select a journal (iteratively related to authoring) Format the manuscript according to the journal s standards Select a corresponding author Submit the manuscript Peer Review Phase Communicate with the Editor and the referee(s) [optional] Address and comply with the referee s report to the Editor Improve the manuscript or withdraw submission Post-Peer Review Phase Pay publication fees [optional] Sign publication contract and addendums [optional] Self-archive preprint manuscript and protocols [optional] Dias 13

14 8. Summary I can only suggest that holding the door open while rats are brought into the laboratory does not constitute authorship. (Smith GM. The meaning of authorship. JAMA 1996; 276:1385) Dias 14

15 Buzzing topic Exactly 2 minutes With your peer (the one next to you): Do you think that your supervisor expects to co-author publications based on your Thesis is this warranted in your case? Dias 15

16 Lecture 8: Understanding and performing Peer Review Lecture (approx.30 minutes) 1. Functions of Peer Review 2. Types of Peer Review 3. Journal Peer Reviewing 4. How to review: Questions to be answered 5. Limitations of Peer Review 6. Unwanted Peer Review Biases 7. Traditional Criticism of Peer Review 8. Failures of Peer Review: Examples 9. Summary Dias 16

17 1. The Functions of Peer Review Quality control in relation to scholarly communication to prevent: Scientific fraud Plagiarism Malpractice and bad science To improve scientific discovery and progress Feedback from peers resulting in better and improved manuscripts Ensuring warranted confidence: Building on the work of your peers Enabling trust in the archives of science Peer Review is indispensable for the progress of biomedical science. (Eds. Kassirer & Compion 1994) Regulatory Peer Review for decision making Tenure: It she a good scientist? Funding: Is this worthy of our money? Scoring / ranking: Who s the best? Politics: Who do we support, to achieve a particular goal? Dias 17

18 2. Types of Peer Review Concerns the relation between the Referee(s) and the Author(s) during the pre-publication process moderated by the Editor Anonymous Peer Review: Referee is anonymous Pros: Authors cannot target the referee. Avoid bias Cons: Referee can target the authors. Cannot avoid bias Double Blind Peer Review: Referee and authors are anonymous Pros: Reduce bias or targeting i.e. against gender Cons: Doesn t work in small communities due to guessing Undisclosed Peer Review: No-one are anonymous Open Peer Review: No disclosure Clinical Peer Review Technical Peer Review Regulatory Peer Review Post-publication Peer Review / Community Review Dias 18

19 3. Journal Peer Reviewing A Peer Who are your peers really? As defined by the publication process As an author, your peers are NOT: The Editor(s) Your co-authors Paid! Generally a Peer Reviewer / Referee must: Be an expert in the same field as the author Be judged capable of conducting research Be a member of the scientific community willing to review for free! Be balanced and ethical in their review and conduct Dias 19

20 4. How to review: Questions to answer Examples of questions Primarily: Does the paper present an important new contribution to the field? [mostly for some high profile journals] Is the paper technically / scientifically / scholarly sound? Are the claims convincing? If not, what further evidence is needed? Are the claims fully supported by the data? Are the claims appropriately discussed in the context of previous literature? Secondly: Is the manuscript clearly written? Have the authors done themselves justice without overselling their claims? Have they been fair in their treatment of previous literature? Have they provided sufficient methodological detail that the arguments / experiments could be reproduced? Are there any special ethical concerns arising? Dias 20

21 5. Limitations of Peer Review There are several pitfalls for editors, reviews, authors and readers! Authors: editorial peer review is, although widely used, it is largely untested and its effects uncertain. (JISC survey) Quality Control: Peer Review cannot guarantee High Quality and what is high quality? Most papers are not cited / quoted at all Identification of fraud / dishonesty / fabrication The examples are notorious the reader must trust the Editor / publication brand Other problems Often referees do not request additional material (time) Often referees do not reproduce arguments / claims (time) Referees and Editors can be biased! Dias 21

22 6. Unwanted Peer Review Biases Examples of Editor and referee biases perhaps you can find more? Conflicts of interests Theories / discourses Minds / politics Economy / funding Biases towards Culture Ethics Race Gender Colleagues Language Dias 22

23 7. Traditional Criticism of Peer Review The known referee and Editor biases and controversial examples of failures leads to criticism that Peer Review, leads to censorship leads to conservatism causes friction (is slow) leads to favorism (towards results AND people) is unscientific possibly favors positive results is expensive! Dias 23

24 8. Failures of Peer Review: Examples Some (significantly shortened) examples of failures and of Peer Review being irrelevant: Nobel Laureate Albert Einstein and Annalen der Physik (1905) Fields Medalist Gigori Perelman and arxiv.org (2006) of Peer Review being dangerous or failing: Edward Jenner and Phil. Trans. s rejection of smallpox report (1796) Hwang Woo-Suk and the human embryonic stem cells (2005) Penkowa and you know of what I speak? of missing Peer Review: Alan Sokal and the affair with Social Text (1996) Dias 24

25 Københavns Universitets Biblioteksservice 9. Summary Despite flaws, the system of monitoring scientific work before it enters into the archives of science means that much of the time scientists can build upon the work of others with a degree of warranted confidence (Zuckerman & Merton 1971) Thousands of papers are reviewed every week, and peer review works usually There aren't any alternative models to peer review. It's a bit like democracy: it's a lousy system but it's the best one we have. (Liz Wager, publications consultant, 2006 til BBC) 25

26 Lecture 9: How to publish Open Access and in Social Media Lecture (approx. 30 minutes) 1. Introduction 2. Author s rights and licensing research publications 3. Open Access Tools for Open Access 5. Academic Social Networking Sites and Social Media 6. Summary Dias 26

27 5. Summary (Daniel C. Gilman, First President, Johns Hopkins University, ) Dias 27

28 1. Introduction to alternative publishing as Open Access and in Social Media. Basic points: You have the duty! Societal reponsibility to disseminate widely to science and the public You have the means Technology and knowledge: Social and scholarly media channels Do you have the rights? Copyright and licensing Dias 28

29 2. Author s rights and licensing research When you publish, you gain somethings, but you also loose somethings Disclosure and Novelty it s out there Part copyright and publication right e.g. either by contract or by piracy and if rights are unclear, misconduct may more easily florish choose which rights! The Copyright Transfer Agreement (CTA) can be suplemented by: An author s addendum A publication license Creative Commons license e.g. BY-NC-ND GNU, Public domain (libre OA), og fx Creative Commons NC If nothing else, then in Denmark the 70-rule and Droit Moral Dias 29

30 3. Open Access 101: Definitions and brief history Budapest, OSI (December 2001 Febrary 2002) Open Access Initiative ( > 4500 signatures) Internet provides new possibility! Remove access barriers: Open Access 1. Self-archiving in open archives searchable through the Internet 2. Open Access journals: New generation without (some) copyright limitations Berlin, MPS (October 2003) Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities (signed by e.g. CNRS, CERN, funders, universities...) Definition of a Open Access publication: 1. Free, permanent, global right to use and distribution, if citing 2. A complete version put in an online repository. Copy of definitionen + declaration on promoting Open Access Dias 30

31 3. Open Access 101: Types of Open Access What is Open Access? Scholarly literature that is free to read; immediately & permanently Two forms Self-archiving by the author in an online repository or website (aka. Green Open Access) Published in a journal free to the reader (aka. OA Publishing) Open Access Publishing Two forms exist for > 9000 electronic journals Completely free of charge (2/3 of all journals) Golden OA Publishing: Demands author s fee / charge e.g. ~ $1000 Issues reg. Peer Review Same fraction of OA journals are Peer Reviewed as TA journals Several OA journals on the BFI point-giving list Several OA journals on the Top-100 JCR (list of journal Impact Factors) AAP s bulldog: Repeat after me OA journals are not Peer Reviewed. Alternative kinds of Peer Review: Nature Scientific Reports and PLoS ONE Dias 31

32 3. Open Access 101: Types of Open Access Possible advantages strongly dependent on field of science Early access: Faster access to research results Faster application Faster (and more) citations Good for research with short period of relevance / lifetime Permanent access: Stabile and long term access Older research is easily accessible Research is accessible despite changes in licensing / publisher permanent URLs / IDs Free access: No license barriers No payment to read (neither subscription or single article) No troublesome license negotiations / expensive prices Accessible to all potential users Impact advantage: Easier to read, easier to use, easier to cite? Dias 32

33 3. Open Access 101: Policies and funding mandates Universities Some universities have strict mandates (i.e. you must): e.g. DTU, CBS UCPH policy: Researchers are encouraged to publish research as Open Access in CURIS (the institutional repository for research registration / CRIS). However, it is up to the individual researcher to determine which media you wish to publish in. The invitation to publish as Open Access in CURIS does not block researchers from publishing in journals that do not allow Open Access publishing - or in Open Access journals. Funders Several research councils and funders have mandates, e.g. EU. Danish Research Councils policy (all national funding): The grant holder is (..) requested to parallel-publish a digital version of the final, peer-reviewed scientific article The article which is a result of full or part financing by research councils (..) must be parallel-published in an institutional or subject-specific repository, i.e. a digital archive. Dias 33

34 4. Tools for Open Access Self-archiving tools (Green) Institutional Repositories Employees of UCPH should use CURIS (cf. Lecture on research registration) If your publish with co-authors from other universities, let them beware Subject Repositories Depend on subject, not competing with Institutional Repositories, e.g. arxiv.org, PubMed Central, hprints.org etc. Open Access publishing tools Publishing platforms Open Source, commercial, existing publishers Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) Sherpa Romeo publisher and funder policies (JISC) Golden Open Access: Institutional memberships, waivers etc. Self-publishing tools, e.g. Wordpress, ibook, FastPencil etc. Dias 34

35 5. Academic Social Networking Sites and Social Media How to use Social Media for Scholarly Communication? 10. Public Communication: Researchers should limit professional comments to their recognized expertise when engaged in public discussions about the application and importance of research findings and clearly distinguish professional comments from opinions based on personal views. (The Singapore Statement) Dias 35

36 5. Academic Social Networking Sites and Social Media Nevertheless Social Media can benefit both authors and editors Connect you to your peers and like-minded Promote you, your organization, your publications, data, ideas etc. Shape your online image Social Networking Sites and Search Engines Social networks are sites are weighted high by webcrawlers: LinkedIn, Twitter, and Facebook appear earlier in search results The more actively involved you are in social networks, the more people will see what you want them to see when they search for you (like e.g. your publications). Which Social Networking Sites are the most important? The landscape is changing on a daily basis: Facebook is currently receiving as much traffic as Google, but MySpace, popular earlier on, is hardly used. You should choose yourself, but also be flexible and adaptable, cf. e.g. Dias 36

37 5. Academic Social Networking Sites and Social Media General Social Networking Sites, examples in situ Short texts and links: LinkedIN Twitter Facebook Other Academic Social Networking Sites, examples to check out Academia.edu (papers) ResearchGate (mostly papers) Figshare (ORCID compliable) Zenodo (papers and data) Mendeley (papers, but also a reference tool) Enhancing outreach: Use the synergy between Social Media and Open Access (links/images)! Dias 37

38 5. Academic Social Networking Sites and Social Media Twitter Tweeters send messages to followers in 140-character posts. Users select the profiles they wish to follow, based on their interests. Typically, users talk about what they are currently up to, recommend URLs for their followers to check out, and upload pictures and videos. For organizations, authors and editors, Twitter provides a cheap and meaningful approach to reach a digital audience, and market your work to them on a more personal level. It is important for a Twitter account to always be active with new tweets, so do not start an account to post unless you have the time to tweet at least 1-2x daily. What tweet? Tweet about an interesting book you read that a colleague wrote Tweet about a conference you are attending Answer people s questions, be a part of the conversion Tweet your new paper, data, graph, ideas using LINK Use # Do not tweet every new article that is online, and that your new journal issue is out and nothing else - Bottom line: No shameless promotion Dias 38

39 5. Academic Social Networking Sites and Social Media Figshare figshare is a repository where users can make all of their research outputs available in a citable, shareable and discoverable manner. figshare allows users to upload any file format to be made visualisable in the browser so that figures, datasets, media, papers, posters, presentations and filesets can be disseminated in a way that the current scholarly publishing model does not allow. Greatest advantages of Figshare FigShare accepts an ORCID ID as the ID number when you first register. It posts to Twitter. Dias 39

40 6. Summary Open access (OA) is the practice of providing unrestricted access via the Internet to peer-reviewed scholarly research. It is most commonly applied to scholarly journal articles, but it is also increasingly being provided to theses, scholarly monographs, book chapters, and entire books. (Wikipedia (EN), September 27th 2013) Dias 40

41 Exercise session C, Module 3: Scholarly Communication Exercises: a. When you consider to reading some literature, would you assign more value to materials that your peers have assessed and deemed high quality? b. In your mind, has a book been Peer Reviewed if a board of scholarly Editors have reviewed it? c. Imagine that you re a referee and within a couple of weeks you receive requests to review two manuscripts from two different editors: one sends you a manuscript for a book chapter written by one of your colleagues at the institute that you recently had a heated discussion with that ended badly, and the others sends you a manuscript for a short paper for a journal. The second manuscript is written by a welknown and well-published scholar from another university. Both manuscripts happen to be on a topic that your re an expert in, and both claim to be the first to come up with and describe the same novel idear / theory / concept / proposal. What do you do? d. Your postdoc position is coming to an end, but there s a position opening at your institute: however, you ve heard through the grape wine that there s competition from abroad a fellow from another university will be applying. She is almost as published as you. And then you receive a request to review a paper of hers for a VERY prestigeous journal the abstract that the Editor sends you reveals that the competition has an original idea that you too have been working on. What do you do? Dias 41

42 The End Dias 42

43 Extra slides Dias 43

44 3. A brief history of quality control in publishing Quality control by peer review stem from journals Peer review reflects a need to handle new problems in the number of articles submitted or to meet the demands for expert authority and objectivity in an increasingly specialized world. (Burnham 1990) There is nothing more necessary for promoting the improvement of science than the communication to those who apply their studies so that things are discovered or put into practice by others. It is proper to employ this Journal to gratify those whose engagement in such studies entitles them to the knowledge of science (1 st editorial prepublication peer-review process by Editor Henry Oldenburg at Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 1665) Sporadically adopted by journals until mid. 20 th century. Many pre-2 nd WW major and important journals were not peer reviewed Modern era: peer review is ubiquitously related to scholarly communication processes in STM: i.e. the publishing of academic and scientific literature E.g. Nature receives ~ 10,000 submissions p.a., 40% goes through Peer Review and 7% is published Dias 44

45 6. Attributing authorship Who s an author? (example: Harvard School of Medicine) Author should have made a substantial, direct, intellectual contribution to the work. For example they should have contributed to the conception, design, analysis and/or interpretation of data. Everyone who has made substantial intellectual contributions to the work should be an author. Everyone who has made other substantial contributions should be acknowledged. When research is done by teams whose members are highly specialized, individuals' contributions and responsibility may be limited to specific aspects of the work. All authors should participate in writing the manuscript by reviewing drafts and approving the final version. One author should take primary responsibility for the work as a whole even if he or she does not have an in-depth understanding of every part of the work (corresponding author). The authors should decide the order of authorship together. However, differences between various subject areas exist, but cf. the Vancouver Protocol and similar rules! Dias 45

46 7. Elements of publication strategy Tools for publication strategies: PhD on Track (Norwgian Danish in English): Startpublicering.nu (in Danish): Dias 46

47 7. Elements of publication strategy Typical considerations when selecting a journal / series / publisher: Subject and topical aims of the journal (if any) Journal s main audience? Do you yourself read articles from this journal? Is it peer-reviewed? Perceived journal impact? E.g. Impact Factor Is the journal ranked on the Danish BFI Authority List? How quick is the process of acceptance and publication? Journal s technical standards? Who are the Editor(s) and the editorial board? Past or perceived experience, with e.g. the journals referees? Is it an Open Access journal? Publication fee? Can you pay how, and how much institutional agreements? Journal policy regarding author s rights? Can you self-archive? Institutional rules and guidelines? Can you re-use your material (e.g. for teaching or followup work)? Dias 47

48 2. Peer Review definition: BFI definition The Bibliometric Research Indicator (BFI) / Governmental BFI point-giving publications are by definition Peer Reviewed (two tiers) Governmental definition of Peer Review (aka. Fagfællebedømmelse ): referee report ensuring scholarly quality 1. Peer Review must always take place before publication (prepublication) Book Reviews are not considered Peer Review! 2. At least one referee must be external to the publisher / institution There is no requirement that the referees be anonymous 3. Referees must be research competent The external referee must have at least a Ph.D. Dias 48

49 3. Open Access 101: Definitions and brief 10 yr history Open Access aims to disseminate science more effectively for everyone. Budapest, OSI (December 2001 February 2002) Open Access Initiative Internet provides new possibility! Remove access barriers: Open Access 1. Self-archiving in open archives searchable through the Internet 2. Open Access journals: New generation without (some) copyright limitations Berlin, MPS (October 2003) Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities (signed by e.g. CNRS, CERN, funders, universities...) Definition of an Open Access publication: 1. Free, permanent, global right to use and distribution, if citing 2. A complete version put in an online repository. Dias 49

50 3. Open Access 101: Definitions and brief history Demand for Open Access stem from the history of preprints = free draft of a scientific article not (yet) published in a journal Distributed among universities, institutions and scholars since whenever. Purpose: Academic merit ( I was first! ) and targeted academic discourse Volume and frequency increased by 2 nd half of 20 th century Discovered by Luisella Goldschmidt-Clermont (librarian at CERN in 1960th) Ex. arxiv.org created by demand and new technology The WWW protocol created by Sir Tim Bernes-Lee, CERN, 1989 Self-archiving of (electronic) preprints since 1991 for sciences Preprints and reprints became new genre = e-prints Dias 50

51 3. Open Access 101: Definitions and brief history E-prints: Monday, Tuesday, Thursday Possible definitions: Preprints = before print, but sometimes also before peer review and acceptance Reprints = re-printed orginale, but sometimes also before print E-prints = all of the above, but sometimes also independent of publishing Dias 51

52 5. Academic Social Networking Sites and Social Media LinkedIn LinkedIn is designed for professionals. Its aim is to connect people with others in the same fields and areas of interests Connections (vs. Friends on Facebook and Followers on Twitter) A LinkedIn profile is very similar to a resume, but allows you to connect with colleagues and see their connections as well. Don t include Any contact information you re not comfortable having your contacts see. Anything that even begins to stray from the truth. Unlike even a resume, your profile will be seen by a lot of eyes. Did you really lead that project, or did you lead it along with several others? Anything you wouldn t want fellow colleagues current, former, or future to know. Advantages of LinkedIn Colleagues and coworkers can recommend you and your work Listing your published work, certifications, patents, languages, and skills. LinkedIn has Groups It can post to Twitter! Dias 52

53 5. Academic Social Networking Sites and Social Media Facebook Facebook is the largest social networking site, with over 600 million active users. It has surpassed Google (2011) and is available to anyone with a valid address over the age of thirteen. You can customize the level of privacy to fi t your needs. You decide who can see what, if any, parts of your profile. The Facebook Pages Insights Tool includes data on fans general interactions on your Page. You ll be able to see how many comments members make on your posts, and you ll also be able to track how many Facebook users start and stop viewing your posts in News Feed with visitor statistics. Issues Don t include any personal information that you do not feel comfortable with others knowing. Don t post Status Updates to the point of spamming your friends/fans, as this can overwhelm their News Feeds. Don t alienate your friends/fans with inappropriate comments. Discussions may get lively, but treat them as you would colleagues. Also remember others can see what you say on Walls. Copyright issues! Dias 53