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 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 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 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 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 First person – Kun Guo

Biology Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Color Change ◽  
Life Sciences ◽  
Early Career ◽  
First Person ◽  
Research Assistant ◽  
Thermal Dependence ◽  
Early Career Researchers ◽  
Takydromus Septentrionalis ◽  
Normal University ◽  
Selection Of

ABSTRACT First Person is a series of interviews with the first authors of a selection of papers published in Biology Open, helping early-career researchers promote themselves alongside their papers. Kun Guo is first author on ‘The thermal dependence and molecular basis of physiological color change in Takydromus septentrionalis (Lacertidae)’, published in BiO. Kun conducted the research described in this article while a PhD student in Xiang Ji's lab at Jiangsu Key Laboratory for Biodiversity and Biotechnology, College of Life Sciences, Nanjing Normal University, Jiangsu, China. They are now research assistant in the lab of Xiang Ji at College of Life and Environmental Sciences, Wenzhou University, Zhejiang, China, and Jiangsu Key Laboratory for Biodiversity and Biotechnology, College of Life Sciences, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.

scholarly journals Pandemic publishing: Medical journals strongly speed up their publication process for COVID-19

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 1056-1067 ◽  
Author(s):  
Serge P. J. M. Horbach
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Information Dissemination ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scholarly Journals ◽  
Medical Journals ◽  
Publication Process ◽  
New Information ◽  
Speed Up ◽  
Rapid Dissemination ◽  
Time Required

In times of public crises, including the current COVID-19 pandemic, rapid dissemination of relevant scientific knowledge is of paramount importance. The duration of scholarly journals’ publication process is one of the main factors that may hinder quick delivery of new information. Following initiatives of medical journals to accelerate their publication process, this study assesses whether medical journals have managed to speed up their publication process for coronavirus-related articles. It studies the duration of 14 medical journals’ publication processes both during and prior to the current pandemic. Assessing 669 articles, the study concludes that medical journals have indeed strongly accelerated their publication process for coronavirus-related articles since the outbreak of the pandemic: The time between submission and publication has decreased on average by 49%. The largest decrease in number of days between submission and publication of articles was due to a decrease in time required for peer review. For articles not related to COVID-19, no acceleration of the publication process is found. While the acceleration of the publication process is laudable from the perspective of quick information dissemination, it also may raise concerns relating to the quality of the peer review process and of the resulting publications.

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).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document