blog de notas de juan freire

Three Finnish researchers have created an online service that could eventually replace or supplement the current way journals get scientists to peer review submitted manuscripts. Already partnered with the ecology journal Ecography, published by Wiley, Peerage of Scienceis an innovative social network of scientists to which researchers submit their manuscripts; other members with relevant expertise, alerted by keywords in the papers, will then provide reviews that scientific journals can use to decide whether to publish the work. University of Jyväskylä and the University of Eastern Finland, where the three creators of the service are based, have sponsored the company founded to further build up the service this year…

The avenues to evaluate citation tracking and journal ranking have greatly increased in the past six years. Bibliometrics, the applicon of mathematical and statistical analysis to books, journals, and other publications, allows us to choose journal collections, assist with applications for research funding, evaluate journal status, and find significant contributors in a subject area. Most importantly, the expertise librarians have in this area can be used to help our faculty prove their scholarly contribution and achieve success in their tenure process.

Any aggregator of citations could create its own bibliometric measures if they are willing to invest the time and expense. Elsevier and Thomson Reuters are the major players in creating citation and journal measures. Each vendor primarily uses its own unique data, journals, publications, authority files, indexes, and subject categories. Both companies have given their data to research labs to create new metrics that are freely available online from the labs and are also included in the company’s products for subscribers. One metric, the h-index, is vendor neutral but there is no overarching tool that exists across vendors. The bibliometrics field is an exciting one to watch and continues to produce beautiful data visualization projects…

Summary

Peer review in scholarly publishing, in one form or another, has always been regarded as crucial to the reputation and reliability of scientific research. In recent years there have been an increasing number of reports and articles assessing the current state of peer review. In view of the importance of evidence-based scientific information to government, it seemed appropriate to undertake a detailed examination of the current peer-review system as used in scientific publications. Both to see whether it is operating effectively and to shine light on new and innovative approaches. We also explored some of the broader issues around research impact, publication ethics and research integrity.

We found that despite the many criticisms and the little solid evidence on the efficacy of pre-publication editorial peer review, it is considered by many as important and not something that can be dispensed with. There are, however, many ways in which current pre-publication peer-review practices can and should be improved and optimised, although we recognise that different types of peer review are suitable to different disciplines and research communities. Innovative approaches—such as the use of pre-print servers, open peer review, increased transparency and online repository-style journals—should be explored by publishers, in consultation with their journals and taking into account the requirements of their research communities. Some of these new approaches may help to reduce the necessary burden on researchers, and also help accelerate the pace of publication of research. We encourage greater recognition of the work carried out by reviewers, by both publishers and employers. All publishers need to have in place systems for recording and acknowledging the contribution of those involved in peer review.

Publishers also have a responsibility to ensure that the people involved in the peer-review process are adequately trained for the role that they play. Training for editors, authors and reviewers varies across the publishing sector and across different research institutions. We encourage publishers to work together to develop standards—which could be applied across the industry—to ensure that all editors, whether staff or academic, are fully equipped for the job that they do. Furthermore, we consider that all early-career researchers should be given the option for training in peer review; responsibility for this lies primarily with the funders of research.

Funders of research have an interest in ensuring that the work they fund is both scientifically sound and reproducible. We consider that it should be a fundamental aim of the peer-review process that all publications are scientifically sound. Reproducibility should be the gold standard that all peer reviewers and editors aim for when assessing whether a manuscript has supplied sufficient information to allow others to repeat and build on the experiments. As such, the presumption must be that, unless there is a strong reason otherwise, data should be fully disclosed and made publicly available. In line with this principle, data associated with all publicly funded research should, where possible, be made widely and freely available. The work of researchers who expend time and effort adding value to their data, to make it usable by others, should be acknowledged and encouraged.

While pre-publication peer review (the first records of which date back to the 17th century) continues to play an important role in ensuring that the scientific record is sound, the growth of post-publication peer review and commentary represents an enormous opportunity for experimentation with new media and social networking tools. Online communications allow the widespread sharing of links to articles, ensuring that interesting research is spread across the world, facilitating rapid commentary and review by the global audience. They also have a valuable role to play in alerting the community to potential deficiencies and problems with published work. We encourage the prudent use of online tools for post-publication review and commentary as a means of supplementing pre- publication review.

On the subject of impact, it was clear to us that the publication of peer-reviewed articles, particularly those that are published in journals with high Impact Factors, has a direct effect on the careers of researchers and the reputations of research institutions. Assessing the impact or perceived importance of research before it is published requires subjective judgement. We therefore have concerns about the use of journal Impact Factor as a proxy measure for the quality of individual articles. While we have been assured by research funders that they do not use this as a proxy measure for the quality of research or of individual articles, representatives of research institutions have suggested that publication in a high-impact journal is still an important consideration when assessing individuals for career progression. We consider that research institutions should be cautious about this approach as there is an element of chance in getting articles accepted in such journals. We have heard in the course of this inquiry that there is no substitute for reading the article itself in assessing the worth of a piece of research.

Finally, we found that the integrity of the peer-review process can only ever be as robust as the integrity of the people involved. Ethical and scientific misconduct—such as in the Wakefield case—damages peer review and science as a whole. Although it is not the role of peer review to police research integrity and identify fraud or misconduct, it does, on occasion, identify suspicious cases. While there is guidance in place for journal editors when ethical misconduct is suspected, we found the general oversight of research integrity in the UK to be unsatisfactory. We note that the UK Research Integrity Futures Working Group report recently made sensible recommendations about the way forward for research integrity in the UK, which have not been adopted. We recommend that the Government revisit the recommendation that the UK should have an oversight body for research integrity that provides “advice and support to research employers and assurance to research funders”, across all disciplines. Furthermore, while employers must take responsibility for the integrity of their employees’ research, we recommend that there be an external regulator overseeing research integrity. We also recommend that all UK research institutions have a specific member of staff leading on research integrity.

What is Citizen Science? Research often involves teams of scientists collaborating across continents. Now, using the power of the Internet, non-specialists are participating, too. Citizen Science falls into many categories. A pioneering project was SETI@Home, which has harnessed the idle computing time of millions of participants in the search for extraterrestrial life. Citizen scientists also act as volunteer classifiers of heavenly objects, such as in Galaxy Zoo. They make observations of the natural world, as in The Great Sunflower Project. And they even solve puzzles to design proteins, such as FoldIt. We’ll add projects regularly—and please tell us about others you like as well.

Entrevista con Annelee Newitz, editora de io9.com. Sobre ciencias y humanidades; alta cultura y cultura popular; las mujeres en la ciencia, la academia y la ciencia ficción; y las limitaciones (y paranoias) de la academia.

About SECRECY

In a single recent year the U.S. classified about five times the number of pages added to the Library of Congress. We live in a world where the production of secret knowledge dwarfs the production of open knowledge. Depending on whom you ask, government secrecy is either the key to victory in our struggle against terrorism, or our Achilles heel. But is so much secrecy a bad thing?

Secrecy saves: counter-terrorist intelligence officers recall with fury how a newspaper article describing National Security Agency abilities directly led to the loss of information that could have avoided the terrorist killing of 241 soldiers in Beirut late in October 1983. Secrecy guards against wanton nuclear proliferation, against the spread of biological and chemical weapons. Secrecy is central to our ability to wage an effective war against terrorism.

Secrecy corrupts. From extraordinary rendition to warrant-less wiretaps and Abu Ghraib, we have learned that, under the veil of classification, even our leaders can give in to dangerous impulses. Secrecy increasingly hides national policy, impedes coordination among agencies, bloats budgets and obscures foreign accords; secrecy throws into the dark our system of justice and derails the balance of power between the executive branch and the rest of government.

This film is about the vast, invisible world of government secrecy. By focusing on classified secrets, the government’s ability to put information out of sight if it would harm national security, Secrecy explores the tensions between our safety as a nation, and our ability to function as a democracy.

Una actividad del OBS (Observatorio del Diseño y la Arquitectura de Murcia)

Ciencia, Código abierto, Software libre, Propiedad intelectual, Acceso abierto, DIY, Biología

Libro: Difusión científica y las iniciativas de Acceso Abierto. Recopilación de publicaciones seleccionadas sobre el Acceso Abierto al conocimiento

• Versión en Español:
  • Visualizar en línea versión en español en lector Issuu
  • Descargar traducción al español (PDF 4.5 MB)

Book: Science Dissemination Using Open Access. A compendium of selected literature on Open Access

• Versión original en Inglés:
  • Visualizar en línea versión original en inglés en lector Issuu
  • Ir al sitio Web de la versión original en inglés del libro

[Entrevista en Letras Libres]

¿Cuánto de C.P. Snow y sus Dos Culturas hay en tu reivindicación de la ciencia y la tecnología de cara a la literatura?
Bueno, bastante. Creo que esa separación es el gran timo de la Era Moderna. Yo no me identifico con esa separación, y creo no tiene sentido en un mundo en el que cada vez todo está más conectado en red…

… ¿respecto a qué eres optimista, es decir, qué drama humano o problema global crees que la ciencia será capaz de resolver en los próximos años?

Todos. No soy apocalíptico. Tarde o temprano todo se soluciona y muta. Un ser individual puede suicidarse, pero no se conoce una civilización que se suicide en masa. Es de lógica, y antropológicamente inconsistente. Llevan siglos diciéndonos que esto se acaba, que tal drama es irreversible, etc. Y aquí estamos. Nos toman por tontos. Es la política del miedo. Ahí a mí no me pillan. Creo que vivimos en el mejor de los mundos posibles hasta ahora conocidos, y que viviremos aún mejor.