scholarly journals Perspectives for early-career researchers on plagiarism and scientific integrity

FACETS ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-25
Author(s):  
Robert G. Young ◽  
T. Fatima Mitterboeck
Keyword(s):  
Graduate Students ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Investigation ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Scientific Integrity ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Early Career Researchers

Lapses in scientific integrity, such as plagiarism, persist in the scientific realm. To be successful and contributory, early-career researchers (ECRs), including graduate students, need to be able to effectively navigate the literature, peer-review process, and scientific research with integrity. Here we discuss different aspects of scientific integrity related to ECRs. Our discussion centres on the concepts of plagiarism and intellectual property, predatory journals, aspects of peer review, transparency in publishing, and false advanced accreditations. Negative elements within these topics may be especially damaging to ECRs, who may be less familiar with the research landscape. We highlight the need for ECRs to approach scientific investigation cautiously and thoughtfully to promote integrity through critical thinking.

scholarly journals How to publish your manuscript successfully (with Wiley)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matteo Cavalleri
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Training Module ◽  
Early Career Researchers

Part of the training module on publishing with the Council of Australian University Librarians, this 1h webinar provides tips to Early Career Researchers on how to write and accompany an article through the peer-review process. Not specific to Wiley journals, but why go elsewhere, really?

scholarly journals A Guide to Preprinting for Early Career Researchers

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cassandra Lane Ettinger ◽  
Madhumala K. Sadanandappa ◽  
Kivanc Görgülü ◽  
Karen Coghlan ◽  
Kenneth K. Hallenbeck ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Life Sciences ◽  
Research Community ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Early Career Researchers

The use of preprints, research manuscripts shared publicly before the traditional peer review process, is becoming more common in the life sciences. Early career researchers (ECRs) benefit from posting preprints as they are shareable, citable, and prove productivity. However, the decision to preprint a manuscript involves a discussion among all co-authors, and ECRs are often not the decision-makers. Therefore, ECRs may find themselves in situations where they are interested in posting a preprint but are unsure how to approach their co-authors or advisor about preprinting. Leveraging our own experiences as ECRs, and feedback from the research community, we have constructed a guide for ECRs who are considering preprinting - to enable them to take ownership over the process, and to raise awareness about preprinting options. We hope that this guide helps ECRs to initiate conversations about preprinting with co-authors or consider whether to preprint their future research.

scholarly journals Peer Review of Manuscripts: A Valuable yet Neglected Educational Tool for Early-Career Researchers

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert McNair ◽  
Hai Anh Le Phuong ◽  
Levente Cseri ◽  
Gyorgy Szekely
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Early Career ◽  
High Quality Research ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Early Career Researchers ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Survey Results ◽  
Number Of Publications

With the number of publications being all-time high, academic peer review is imperative to ensure high-quality research content. The wider involvement of postgraduate, early-career researchers (ECRs) has been proposed on several platforms to address the unsustainability of the peer review process caused by a lack of peer reviewers. A survey involving 1203 academics and ECRs in ten countries revealed their attitudes towards the involvement of ECRs in the peer review process. The trends and motives were identified, with emphasis on the peer review being an oft-neglected tool in the skill development of ECRs. In light of the survey results, the transferrable skills that ECRs acquire from performing peer reviews at a crucial stage in their career development are systematically explored. The findings call for further engagement of ECRs in the peer review process under supervisory mentoring.

scholarly journals Peer Review Process in Scholarly Communication and Scientific Publishing

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 15-19
Author(s):  
Bishnu Bahadur Khatri
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
The Public ◽  
Quality Control Mechanism

Peer review in scholarly communication and scientific publishing, in one form or another, has always been regarded as crucial to the reputation and reliability of scientific research. In the growing interest of scholarly research and publication, this paper tries to discuss about peer review process and its different types to communicate the early career researchers and academics.This paper has used the published and unpublished documents for information collection. It reveals that peer review places the reviewer, with the author, at the heart of scientific publishing. It is the system used to assess the quality of scientific research before it is published. Therefore, it concludes that peer review is used to advancing and testing scientific knowledgeas a quality control mechanism forscientists, publishers and the public.

scholarly journals Accuracy in detecting inadequate research reporting by early career peer reviewers using an online CONSORT-based peer-review tool (COBPeer) versus the usual peer-review process: a cross-sectional diagnostic study

BMC Medicine ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Chauvin ◽  
Philippe Ravaud ◽  
David Moher ◽  
David Schriger ◽  
Sally Hopewell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Diagnostic Study ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Link Type ◽  
The Mean

Abstract Background The peer review process has been questioned as it may fail to allow the publication of high-quality articles. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy in identifying inadequate reporting in RCT reports by early career researchers (ECRs) using an online CONSORT-based peer-review tool (COBPeer) versus the usual peer-review process. Methods We performed a cross-sectional diagnostic study of 119 manuscripts, from BMC series medical journals, BMJ, BMJ Open, and Annals of Emergency Medicine reporting the results of two-arm parallel-group RCTs. One hundred and nineteen ECRs who had never reviewed an RCT manuscript were recruited from December 2017 to January 2018. Each ECR assessed one manuscript. To assess accuracy in identifying inadequate reporting, we used two tests: (1) ECRs assessing a manuscript using the COBPeer tool (after completing an online training module) and (2) the usual peer-review process. The reference standard was the assessment of the manuscript by two systematic reviewers. Inadequate reporting was defined as incomplete reporting or a switch in primary outcome and considered nine domains: the eight most important CONSORT domains and a switch in primary outcome(s). The primary outcome was the mean number of domains accurately classified (scale from 0 to 9). Results The mean (SD) number of domains (0 to 9) accurately classified per manuscript was 6.39 (1.49) for ECRs using COBPeer versus 5.03 (1.84) for the journal’s usual peer-review process, with a mean difference [95% CI] of 1.36 [0.88–1.84] (p < 0.001). Concerning secondary outcomes, the sensitivity of ECRs using COBPeer versus the usual peer-review process in detecting incompletely reported CONSORT items was 86% [95% CI 82–89] versus 20% [16–24] and in identifying a switch in primary outcome 61% [44–77] versus 11% [3–26]. The specificity of ECRs using COBPeer versus the usual process to detect incompletely reported CONSORT domains was 61% [57–65] versus 77% [74–81] and to identify a switch in primary outcome 77% [67–86] versus 98% [92–100]. Conclusions Trained ECRs using the COBPeer tool were more likely to detect inadequate reporting in RCTs than the usual peer review processes used by journals. Implementing a two-step peer-review process could help improve the quality of reporting. Trial registration Clinical.Trials.govNCT03119376 (Registered April, 18, 2017).

scholarly journals Predatory publishing in management research: A call for open peer review

2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (5) ◽  
pp. 607-619 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonhard Dobusch ◽  
Maximilian Heimstädt
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Governance Mechanism ◽  
Management Research ◽  
New Governance ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Predatory Publishing

Predatory journals have emerged as an unintended consequence of the Open Access paradigm. Predatory journals only supposedly or very superficially conduct peer review and accept manuscripts within days to skim off publication fees. In this provocation piece, we first explain how predatory journals exploit deficiencies of the traditional peer review process in times of Open Access publishing. We then explain two ways in which predatory journals may harm the management discipline: as an infrastructure for the dissemination of pseudo-science and as a vehicle to portray management research as pseudo-scientific. Analyzing data from a journal blacklist, we show that without the ability to validate their claims to conduct peer review, most of the 639 predatory management journals are quite difficult to demarcate from serious journals. To address this problem, we propose open peer review as a new governance mechanism for management journals. By making parts of their peer review process more transparent and inclusive, reputable journals can differentiate themselves from predatory journals and additionally contribute to a more developmental reviewing culture. Eventually, we discuss ways in which editors, reviewers, and authors can advocate reform of peer review.

scholarly journals Iranian Mental Health Researchers & Predatory Journals

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 260-263
Author(s):  
Seyed Mohammad Hossein Mahmoodi ◽  
◽  
Amir Hossein Jalali Nadoushan ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Substantial Contribution ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Open Access Publication ◽  
Financial Gain

Predatory journals exploit open access publication method; they do not carry out the peer review process and editorial assessment properly and publish unassessed articles for financial gain. According to a recent investigation published in the Lancet Psychiatry Journal, about 20% of authors or co-authors of articles published in predatory psychiatric journals have been Iranian. This substantial contribution needs attention and seems to be compatible with previous studies inspecting involvement of other academics from Iran in predatory publications.

scholarly journals On the value of preprints: an early career researcher perspective

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarvenaz Sarabipour ◽  
Humberto J Debat ◽  
Edward Emmott ◽  
Steven Burgess ◽  
Benjamin Schwessinger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Life Sciences ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Journal Publication ◽  
Early Career Researchers ◽  
Brand Recognition ◽  
Public Record ◽  
Rapid Dissemination ◽  
Early Career Researcher

Peer-reviewed journal publication is the main means for academic researchers in the life sciences to create a permanent, public record of their work. These publications are also the de facto currency for career progress, with a strong link between journal brand recognition and perceived value. The current peer-review process can lead to long delays between submission and publication, with cycles of rejection, revision and resubmission causing redundant peer review. This situation creates unique challenges for early career researchers (ECRs), who rely heavily on timely publication of their work to gain recognition for their efforts. ECRs face changes in the academic landscape including the increased interdisciplinarity of life sciences research, expansion of the researcher population and consequent shifts in employer and funding demands. The publication of preprints, publicly available scientific manuscripts posted on dedicated preprint servers prior to journal managed peer-review, can play a key role in addressing these ECR challenges. Preprinting benefits include rapid dissemination of academic work, open access, establishing priority or concurrence, receiving feedback and facilitating collaborations. While there is a growing appreciation for and adoption of preprints, a minority of all articles in life sciences and medicine are preprinted. The current low rate of preprint submissions in life sciences and ECR concerns regarding preprinting needs to be addressed. We provide a perspective from an interdisciplinary group of early career researchers on the value of preprints and advocate the wide adoption of preprints to advance knowledge and facilitate career development.

scholarly journals Editorial Note: Fast Peer Review: A Practice of Predatory Journals or Fair Treatment for Authors?

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (27) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Jovan Shopovski ◽  
Robert W. McGee ◽  
Daniel B. Hier
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Academic Discipline ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Editorial Note ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
On Line

Despite its weaknesses, peer review is our best gatekeeper of rigorous science. With the advent of on-line and open-access publishing, a vigorous debate has ensued over the timeliness of peer review. Many of us remember, and some still face, long peer review and publishing timeframes. Ware and Mabe (2015) estimated that a reviewer needs from several hours to a day to carefully prepare a peer review. Even so, the time from submission to first decision varies from 8 weeks to 18 weeks and varies by academic discipline and journal. Although the slowness of the peer review process has been critiqued (Lotriet, 2012), long ingrained processes have been slow to change. The development of the open access publishing has brought to the forefront the need to speed the peer review process and reduce the time to publication. However, short peer review times have been cited as one of the hallmarks of predatory journals (Cobey at al. 2018). Some have suggested that a faster and more agile peer review process may undermine the quality of published research (Bagdasarian et al. 2020).

Shadow Program Committee Initiative

2021 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 16-18
Author(s):  
Patanamon Thongtanunam ◽  
Ayushi Rastogi ◽  
Foutse Khomh ◽  
Serge Demeyer ◽  
Meiyappan Nagappan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Research Community ◽  
Program Committee ◽  
Early Career ◽  
New Faculty ◽  
Great Chance ◽  
Good Review ◽  
Initiative Program

The Shadow Program Committee (PC) is an initiative/program that provides an opportunity to Early-Career Researchers (ECRs), i.e., PhD students, postdocs, new faculty members, and industry practitioners, who have not been in a PC, to learn rst-hand about the peer-review process of the technical track at Software Engi- neering (SE) conferences. This program aims to train the next generation of PC members as well as to allow ECRs to be recog- nized and embedded in the research community. By participating in this program, ECRs will have a great chance i) to gain expe- rience about the reviewing process including the restrictions and ethical standards of the academic peer-review process; ii) to be mentored by senior researchers on how to write a good review; and iii) to create a network with other ECRs and senior researchers (i.e., Shadow PC advisors). The Shadow PC program was rst introduced to the SE research community at the Mining Software Repositories (MSR) confer- ence in 2021. The program was led by Patanamon Thongta- nunam and Ayushi Rastogi (Shadow PC Co-chairs) with support from Shadow PC Advisor Co-Chairs (Foutse Khomh and Serge Demeyer), PC Co-Chairs of the technical track (Meiyappan Na- gappan and Kelly Blincoe), and the General Chair of the con- ference, Gregorio Robles. To promote and facilitate the Shadow PC program at SE conferences in the future, this report provides details about the process and a re ection on the Shadow PC pro- gram during MSR2021. The presentation slides and video are also available online at https://youtu.be/ReUXwmtIEk8.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document