Towards proper evaluation of book publishing in the social sciences

Books are important in the social sciences. Monographs and edited books allow for presenting original research based on methodologies or forms of collaboration that the format of the journal article does not serve as appropriately. Books are also used to engage directly with society. This chapter first introduces book publishing in the social sciences as a diversity of genres, purposes, and audiences. We then limit the scope to peer-reviewed scholarly book publishing and describe how publication patterns differ among the disciplines of the social sciences in the dimensions of books versus journal articles and national versus international publishing. Then we focus on the structure of the scholarly book publishing market with particular attention to developments towards open access publishing. The chapter ends with our suggestions for principles that can guide proper evaluation of book publishing in the social sciences.

Supernumerary teeth in premolar and molar area on CBCT: a pictorial review.

Objective: to build a descriptive classification of premolar and molar supernumerary teeth (ST) when preparing the cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) report. The aim is also to share wide range of CBCT images in the open access publishing model. Material and methods: For our review we systematically searched for articles from PubMed with 1) free full texts on ST in molar and premolar area and using CBCT, and 2) articles providing with information on complications related with the presence of ST in molar and premolar area. We also added to our review studies providing with classic ST classifications in premolar and molar area. Results: We found 29 cases of ST, and we freely illustrated them with 84 figures. We separated our pictorial review in: 1) unilateral ST in the mandible, 2) unilateral ST in the maxilla, 3) unilateral undersized ST, 4) bilateral ST, 5) ST with additional features, and 6) cases with major hyperdontia. Conclusions: we build up the classification matrix for premolar and molar ST with 11 descriptors and 50 boxes. The descriptors were: 1) location if the ST crown in axial view, 2) vertical location of the cusp tip in relation with closest erupted tooth in coronal view, 3) shape, 4) distribution, 5) Position (in relation to normal tooth eruption) in sagittal view, 6) State of eruption of the ST in the sagittal view, 7) Follicle size measurement in sagittal view, 8) External root resorption of adjacent teeth by ST and its location in relation to the long axis of the involved tooth, 9) Internal resorption of ST, 10) Adjacent tooth complication, and 11) Damage to surrounding structures if ST removal. The open access figures from the literature illustrated 11 boxes. With our pictorial review we were able to illustrate 45 out of 50 boxes, and freely provide the readership with the most complete description of ST in premolar and molar area on CBCT than in previously published studies.

Social justice driving open access publishing: an African perspective

The OA movement isgenerally considered to have been founded for the truly philanthropic purposeof promoting equity and inclusivity in access to scholarship. For Africans,this meant the opening of the research ecosystem to marginalised researchcommunities who could then freely make use of shared research to aid in thesocio-economic development and emancipation of the continent. However, this philanthropicpurpose has been deviated from, leading instead to the disenfranchisement ofthe African research community. Through systemic inequalities embedded in thescholarly ecosystem, the publishing landscape has been northernised, withresearch from the global north sitting at the very top of the knowledgehierarchy to the exclusion of Africa and other parts of the global south. Forthis reason, progressive open access practices and policies need to be adopted,with an emphasis on social justice as an impetus, to enhance the sharing andrecognition of African scholarship, while also bridging the ‘research-exchange’divide that exists between the global south and north. Furthermore, advocatesof open access must collaborate to create equal opportunities for Africanvoices to participate in the scholarly landscape through the creation anddissemination of global south research. Thusly, the continental platform wasdeveloped by University of Cape Town. This platform was developed around theconcept of a tenant model to act as a contributor to social justice driven openaccess advocacy, and as a disruptor of the unjust knowledge hierarchies thatexist. 

What Do Participants Think of Our Research Practices? An Examination of Behavioral Psychology Participants’ Preferences

What research practices should be considered acceptable? Historically, scientists have set the standards for what constitutes acceptable research practices. However, there is value in considering non-scientists’ perspectives, including research participants’. 1,873 participants from MTurk and university subject pools were surveyed after their participation in one of eight minimal-risk studies. We asked participants how they would feel if common research practices were applied to their data: p-hacking/cherry-picking results, selective reporting of studies, Hypothesizing After Results are Known (HARKing), committing fraud, conducting direct replications, sharing data, sharing methods, and open access publishing. An overwhelming majority of psychology research participants think questionable research practices (e.g., p-hacking, HARKing) are unacceptable (68.3--81.3%), and were supportive of practices to increase transparency and replicability (71.4--80.1%). A surprising number of participants expressed positive or neutral views toward scientific fraud, raising concerns about the quality of our data. We grapple with this concern and interpret our results in light of the limitations of our study. Despite ambiguity in our results, we argue that there is evidence (from our study and others’) that researchers may be violating participants’ expectations and should be transparent with participants about how their data will be used.

Open access in the humanities, arts and social sciences: Complex perceptions of researchers and implications for research support

Adoption of open access in the humanities, arts and social sciences (HASS) is a work in progress, with lower engagement in HASS than most of the natural sciences. HASS research impacts how we live, how we learn and how we see ourselves, and research institutions should encourage and enable their HASS research communities to increase the prevalence of open access research outputs. Six experienced HASS researchers at a single academic institution in Perth, Australia, were interviewed to explore their perceptions and experiences of open access, and any barriers that they had encountered. Thematic analysis was used to code the transcribed interviews, and generate themes. This study found a wide variance in the adoption of open access practices among HASS researchers. Some participants are publishing via APC-based gold open access (in DOAJ listed journals), while other participants encounter multiple barriers to sharing more of their work as open access. Confusion about aspects of open access is evident. Even among participants who support open access, some have had poor experiences of open access publishing. This research also found that some participants hold extremely complex opinions on open access, which directly influence participants’ behaviour depending on which perspective they are considering. These perspectives are: research supervisor, editorial role at journal, funding assessor and global citizen. Within HASS a diversity of behaviours exists around open access, and research institutions need to tailor their research support services around open access and scholarly publishing for different communities of researchers.

The Roles of Female Involvement and Risk Aversion in Open Access Publishing Patterns in Vietnamese Social Sciences and Humanities

Purpose The open-access (OA) publishing model can help improve researchers’ outreach, thanks to its accessibility and visibility to the public. Therefore, the presentation of female researchers can benefit from the OA publishing model. Despite that, little is known about how gender affects OA practices. Thus, the current study explores the effects of female involvement and risk aversion on OA publishing patterns among Vietnamese social sciences and humanities. Design/methodology/approach The study employed Bayesian Mindsponge Framework (BMF) on a dataset of 3,122 Vietnamese social sciences and humanities (SS&H) publications during 2008–2019. The Mindsponge mechanism was specifically used to construct theoretical models, while Bayesian inference was utilized for fitting models. Findings The result showed a positive association between female participation and OA publishing probability. However, the positive effect of female involvement on OA publishing probability was negated by the high ratio of female researchers in a publication. OA status was negatively associated with the JIF of the journal in which the publication was published, but the relationship was moderated by the involvement of a female researcher(s). The findings suggested that Vietnamese female researchers might be more likely to publish under the OA model in journals with high JIF for avoiding the risk of public criticism. Research limitations The study could only provide evidence on the association between female involvement and OA publishing probability. However, whether to publish under OA terms is often determined by the first or corresponding authors, but not necessarily gender-based. Practical implications Systematically coordinated actions are suggested to better support women and promote the OA movement in Vietnam. Originality/value The findings show the OA publishing patterns of female researchers in Vietnamese SS&H.

Psychology and Law, Meet Open Science

As the field of psychology and law begins to embrace more transparent and accessible science, many questions arise about what open science actually is and how to do it. In this chapter, we contextualize this reform by examining fundamental concerns about psychological research—irreproducibility and replication failures, false-positive errors, and questionable research practices—that threaten its validity and credibility. Next, we turn to psychology’s response by reviewing the concept of open science and explaining how to implement specific practices—preregistration, registered reports, open materials/data/code, and open access publishing—designed to make research more transparent and accessible. We conclude by weighing the implications of open science for the field of psychology and law, specifically with respect to how we conduct and evaluate research, as well as how we train the next generation of psychological scientists and share scientific findings in applied settings.