Peer Review #2 of "On the reproducibility of science: unique identification of research resources in the biomedical literature (v0.2)"

Scientific claims in biomedical research are typically derived from statistical analyses. However, misuse and misunderstanding of statistical procedures and results permeates the biomedical literature, affecting the validity of those claims. One approach journals have taken to address this issue is to enlist expert statistical reviewers. How many journals do this, how statistical review is incorporated, and how its value is perceived by editors is of interest. Here we report an expanded version of a survey conducted more than 20 years ago by Goodman and colleagues (1998) with the intention of characterizing contemporary statistical review policies at leading biomedical journals. We received eligible responses from 107 of 364 (28%) journals surveyed, across 57 fields, mostly from editors in chief. 34% (36/107) rarely or never use specialized statistical review, 34% (36/107) used it for 10-50% of their articles and 23% used it for all articles. These numbers have changed little since 1998 in spite of dramatically increased concern about research validity. The vast majority of editors regarded statistical review as having substantial incremental value beyond regular peer review and expressed comparatively little concern about the potential increase in reviewing time, cost, and difficulty identifying suitable statistical reviewers. Improved statistical education of researchers and different ways of employing statistical expertise are needed. Several proposals are discussed.

Download Full-text

The C in ORCID: from authorship to contributorship

Septentrio Conference Series ◽

10.7557/5.5616 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Gabriela Mejias ◽

Paloma Marín-Arraiza

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Scholarly Communication ◽

Global Scale ◽

Digital Infrastructure ◽

Current Implementation ◽

Different Types ◽

Research Scholarship ◽

The Impact ◽

Share Information ◽

Research Resources

ORCID is part of the wider digital infrastructure needed for all those who participate in research, scholarship and innovation to share information on a global scale. As part of our commitment with openness, we enable transparent and trustworthy connections between researchers, their contributions, and activities by providing an identifier for individuals to use with their name as they engage in research. Since its foundation in 2013, ORCID has aimed to enable and improve recognition for a broader range of contributions than textual publications. Its current worktype list includes 43 different types of contributions. In combination with acknowledging further contributions, ORCID also considers research resources (infrastructure, collection, equipment and service) to provide a better understanding of the impact of the work undertaken by researchers using them. This webinar will explore how ORCID supports the creation of a permanent, and unambiguous record of research and scholarly communication by enabling reliable attribution of contributors and their activities. The session will focus on the development and current implementation of ORCID tools to acknowledge and encourage contributions such as preprints and peer review activities, as well as the work being done to support contributor roles (CRediT taxonomy). The session will also showcase an analysis of the current community adoption of these features and aims to trigger a discussion on the future of the scholarly record.

Download Full-text