scholarly journals Coauthorship by patients and other stakeholders with limited knowledge of scientific publishing practices

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven S. Coughlin
Author(s):  
Paula Carina de Araújo ◽  
Maria do Carmo Duarte Freitas ◽  
Helza Ricarte Lanz

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Lidsky

The ASAPbio initiative makes a major call for renovation in scientific publishing in biological sciences. The suggested reforms include open access preprints and a fully transparent review process. If introduced into practice, these changes should result in a dramatic cultural change in scientific publishing, probably making it more predictable and consistent. Innovate ways for evaluation of scientific impact were also discussed during the meeting in February 2018. The aim of this essay is to discuss possible developmental trajectories and a possible strategy of changing publishing practices to make citation-based indexes more reliable, fair and informative and thus to complement the ASAPbio proposals.


2010 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 1249-1254 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sherie A. Dowsett ◽  
Luann E. Van Campen ◽  
Lisa A. Bednar

2021 ◽  
pp. tobaccocontrol-2020-056003
Author(s):  
Tess Legg ◽  
Michél Legendre ◽  
Anna B Gilmore

Litigation forced the dissolution of three major tobacco industry-funded organisations because of their egregious role in spreading scientific misinformation. Yet in 2017, a new scientific organisation—the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW)—was launched, funded entirely by tobacco corporation Philip Morris International (PMI). Experts fear FSFW similarly serves to benefit its funder’s scientific and political agenda. We present three case studies of FSFW’s publishing practices to explore: whether FSFW and its affiliates are acting with scientific integrity in their attempts to publish research; how conflicts of interest (COI) are governed in the journals FSFW targets; whether scientific publishing needs to be better protected from the tobacco industry in light of this, and if so, how. FSFW and its grantees have resorted to repeated obfuscation when publishing their science. FSFW staff have failed to act transparently and arguably have sought control over editorial processes (at times facilitated by PR firm, Ruder Finn). FSFW-funded organisations (including its Italian ‘Centre of Excellence’) and researchers affiliated with FSFW (including those working as editors and peer-reviewers) have failed to disclose their links to FSFW and PMI. While journals also failed to apply their COI policies, including on tobacco industry-funded research, the findings highlight that such policies are almost entirely dependent on researchers fully declaring all potential COIs. The paper explores ways to address these problems, including via standardised reporting of COI and funding in journals; journal policies prohibiting publication of tobacco industry-funded science; development of an author-centric database of financial interests; and legally mandated tobacco industry financial contributions to fund science on new tobacco and nicotine products.


Nature ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 582 (7811) ◽  
pp. 167-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ewen Callaway

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Milind Watve

Peer reviewed scientific publishing is critical for communicating important findings, interpretations and theories in any branch of science. While the value of peer review is rarely doubted, much concern is being raised about the possible biases in the process. I argue here that most of the biases originate in the evolved innate tendency of every player to optimize one’s own cost benefits. Different players in the scientific publishing game have different cost-benefit optima. There are multiple conflicts between individual optima and collective goals. An analysis of the cost-benefit optima of every player in the scientific publishing game shows how and why biases originate. In the current system of publishing, by optimization considerations, the probability of publishing a ‘bad’ manuscript is relatively small but the probability of rejecting a ‘good’ manuscript is very high. By continuing with the current publishing structure, the global distribution of the scientific community would be increasingly clustered. Publication biases by gender, ethnicity, reputation, conformation and conformity will be increasingly common and revolutionary concepts increasingly difficult to publish. Ultimately, I explore the possibility of designing a peer review publishing system in which the conflicts between individual optimization and collective goal can be minimized. In such a system, if everyone behaves with maximum selfishness, biases would be minimized and the progress towards the collective goal would be faster and smoother. Changing towards such a system might prove difficult unless a critical mass of authors take an active role to revolutionize scientific publishing.


2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans E Roosendaal ◽  
Kasia Zalewska-Kurek ◽  
Peter A.Th.M Geurts

Mousaion ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ncamsile Nombulelo Dlamini ◽  
Maritha Snyman

The purpose of this paper is to assess the current status of institutional repositories (IRs) in Swaziland’s academic institutions. The factors under discussion are the number of IRs in Swaziland, their usage, the level of awareness of these IRs, and the challenges that prevent the implementation of IRs in Swaziland’s academic institutions. A webometric approach, interviews and semi-structured questionnaires completed by IR managers or librarians working for the Swaziland’s academic institutions were used to collect data for this study. Responses were received from 11 respondents. The findings indicated that there is one IR in Swaziland that is accessible to the institution’s community via the intranet. This IR was, at the time when this study took place, not registered in any of the international registries of repositories, such as the Registry of Open Access Repositories (ROAR) and the Directory of Open Access Repositories (OpenDOAR). Currently, this IR faces problems of insufficient content, a low level of IR awareness, limited knowledge of effective and appropriate IR advocacy strategies and limited knowledge of effective IR implementation and management strategies. Based on the findings and information gained from a literature review of IRs, the paper recommends strategies to academic institutions in Swaziland that may enable them to increase their number of IRs, the awareness level of IRs and consequently the use of IRs. The findings and recommendations may also benefit other African countries in similar situations.  


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document