Editorial: Keep the Conversation Going—The Importance of Post-publication Dialogue

Seth S. Leopold

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/corr.0000000000002983

IF: 4.755

2024-01-24

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research

Abstract:High-quality, peer-reviewed journals are the minutes of an ongoing meeting that is science. And like any effective meeting, science works better as a conversation than as a monologue.

surgery,orthopedics

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Scientific journals should be transformed into science storytellers to improve their visibility

Kwangil Oh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.255

2021-08-20

Science Editing

Abstract:What is the objective for science journals to publish research papers? Would it be enough to collect research manuscripts and simply publish them in print or on the web? Science journal publishers have always strived to find ways of disseminating journal content to as many readers as possible. It is now time for science journal publishers to think about why a journal should be published; whether it is acceptable for valuable scientific findings to lie dormant in a journal’s archive; and whether traditional science communication is still effective. The present article suggests that science journals should transform themselves into science storytellers to improve the visibility and discoverability of their research findings. First, a new communication network between journals, authors, peers, the public, and policymakers is required. Second, conversion of media from academic language to plain language is critical to broadening the audience. Third, audio-visual content should be introduced into journal publishing to facilitate easy comprehension of the content. Fourth, research-focused channels, including EurekAlert, Medium, and social networking service channels are recommended as new media to propagate journals’ content to researchers. Improving visibility and discoverability is an urgent mission, especially for small society journals. To achieve this mission, science journals should be adapted to become storytellers and science communicators, as suggested above. A small society journal’s editor is not merely an editor, but an editor-publisher; therefore, editors should understand and take on this role.
Editorial Essay: Why Do We Still Have Journals?

Gerald F. Davis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839214534186

IF: 12.529

2014-05-05

Administrative Science Quarterly

Abstract:The Web has greatly reduced the barriers to entry for new journals and other platforms for communicating scientific output, and the number of journals continues to multiply. This leaves readers and authors with the daunting cognitive challenge of navigating the literature and discerning contributions that are both relevant and significant. Meanwhile, measures of journal impact that might guide the use of the literature have become more visible and consequential, leading to “impact gamesmanship” that renders the measures increasingly suspect. The incentive system created by our journals is broken. In this essay, I argue that the core technology of journals is not their distribution but their review process. The organization of the review process reflects assumptions about what a contribution is and how it should be evaluated. Through their review processes, journals can certify contributions, convene scholarly communities, and curate works that are worth reading. Different review processes thereby create incentives for different kinds of work. It’s time for a broader dialogue about how we connect the aims of the social science enterprise to our system of journals.

management,business
From impact metrics and open science to communicating research: Journalists' awareness of academic controversies

Alice Fleerackers,Laura L Moorhead,Juan Pablo Alperin,Michelle Riedlinger,Lauren A Maggio

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.03.609638

2024-09-04

Abstract:This study sheds light on how journalists respond to evolving debates within academia around topics including research integrity, improper use of metrics to measure research quality and impact, and the risks and benefits of the open science movement. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 19 health and science journalists, we describe journalists' awareness of these controversies and the ways in which that awareness, in turn, shapes the practices they use to select, verify, and communicate research. Our findings suggest that journalists' perceptions of debates in scholarly communication vary widely, with some displaying a highly critical and nuanced understanding and others presenting a more limited awareness. Those with a more in-depth understanding report closely scrutinizing the research they report, carefully vetting the study design, methodology, and analyses. Those with a more limited awareness are more trusting of the peer review system as a quality control system and more willing to rely on researchers when determining what research to report on and how to vet and frame it. We discuss the benefits and risks of these varied perceptions and practices, highlighting the implications for the nature of the research media coverage that reaches the public.

Scientific Communication and Education
What Medical Journal Editing Means to Me

Harvey Marcovitch

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0973-1229.33004

2008-01-01

Mens Sana Monographs

Abstract:Papers in medical journals are often difficult to understand and tedious to read. An editor's first loyalty should be to readers, by prioritising readability over merely producing a repository of data for the scientific community generally.The web now provides infinite repository space so there is even less excuse for journals to be unreadable. I give examples of how I attempted to improve one journal, despite external pressures and regardless of how it might affect the Impact Factor. As a postscript I outline increasing involvement in promoting honesty and integrity in publishing through the auspices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Editorial Policy As Conversation Aid

Stephen Meardon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s1053837224000075

IF: 0.583

2024-09-28

Journal of the History of Economic Thought

Abstract:The invitation is to discuss my JHET editorship, which ran from 2013 to 2018, in light of the once and future challenges of the journal. After accepting it, I gathered my recollections, perused back issues of the journal, and finally reviewed my correspondence and reports to the HES Executive Committee.

history of social sciences,history
[Social Science editors in Public Health: practices and limits in the creation of a scientific habitus]

Suely Deslandes,Ivia Maksud

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-311XPT076922

2022-10-10

Abstract:Scientific publishing is a socially valued practice, modulating academic trajectories. Scientific journals operate between two distinct social fields, the editorial and the scientific, having as axis the objective and intersubjective relationships of the scientific field. This article analyzes the performance of Social Science editors in the field of Public Health, as well as their conceptions about the process of evaluating scientific articles, their perspective and relationship with other agents of editorial practice, and their role in shaping a scientific habitus. The methodological option was the thematic analysis of 13 semi-structured interviews with editors-in-chief and associates of the Social Science area of prominent journals in Public Health. Editors are agents who operate with the contradictions and pressures derived from productivism in a relative autonomy of the editorial practice. They gradually create an editorial habitus coined by empirical practice, self-taught training, and voluntary dedication. They also establish a dialogue between authors and the peer-competitor community in the field. They delimit objects and themes of interest in the area from the legitimacy based on the "disinterested" action demanded by the scientific field. They will impose barriers to articles considered of low quality, defined especially by theoretical-methodological gaps and lack of originality. However, their didactic work of inculcation in a way considered appropriate in the management of theories and methodologies of Social Science is limited to the refusal of texts, which suggests the importance of greater articulation between editors, editors' forums, graduate programs, and other agents of training of researchers in the field.
Publishing Biomedical Research: a rapidly evolving ecosystem

Jeffrey S Flier

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2023.a902032

Abstract:The advancement of science requires the publication of research results so other scientists may examine, confirm, and build upon them, and the publishing ecosystem that mediates this process has undergone dramatic change over recent decades. This article takes a broad view of the biomedical research publishing system from its origins in the 17th century to the present day. It begins with a story from the author's lab that illustrates a scientist's complex interactions with the publishing system and then reviews the history, growth, and evolution of scientific publishing, including several recent disruptive developments: the digital transformation, the open access (OA) movement, the creation of "predatory journals," and the emergence of preprint archives. Each has influenced scientific peer review and editorial decision-making, two processes critical to the conduct of medical and scientific research and culture. After briefly discussing concerns about the impact of politics on editorial decision-making, the article closes with thoughts on the future evolution of this publishing ecosystem, which will impact the biomedical research ecosystem that depends upon it. Beyond accelerated speed and improved access to publications, the community should prioritize research aimed at further enhancing the quality and impact of published research, the core goal of the scientific enterprise.
Exploring the Black Box of Journal Manuscript Review: A Survey of Social Science Journal Editors

Elizabeth Ehrhardt Mustaine,Richard Tewksbury

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2012.759244

2013-09-01

Journal of Criminal Justice Education

Abstract:Conducting and publishing research is one of the core responsibilities of academic researchers. Frequently, publications are commonly used measurements for assessing suitability for hiring, tenure, and promotion. Understanding the “black box” of the publication process is essential for budding and new scholars, who are often expected to publish at rapid paces. The current study seeks to provide information about the publication process and the editorial tasks of editors through the eyes of scholarly journal editors. We find it would benefit authors to carefully select the journal to which they will submit (making sure their manuscripts are “good fits” for the journals’ missions), focus their efforts on the initial stages of a research project (making sound decisions about methods), and remember that the scholars who are cited in their literature review sections will likely become the reviewers of their manuscripts.
Beyond Journals and Peer Review: Towards a More Flexible Ecosystem for Scholarly Communication

Michael Wood

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202012.0612.v2

2021-08-30

Abstract:This article challenges the assumption that journals and peer review are essential for developing, evaluating and disseminating scientific and other academic knowledge. It suggests a more flexible ecosystem, and examines some of the possibilities this might facilitate. The market for academic outputs should be opened up by encouraging the separation of the dissemination service from the evaluation service. Publishing research in subject-specific journals encourages compartmentalising research into rigid categories. The dissemination of knowledge would be better served by an open access, web-based repository system encompassing all disciplines. There would then be a role for organisations to assess the items in this repository to help users find relevant, high-quality work. There could be a variety of such organisations which could enable reviews from peers to be supplemented with evaluation by non-peers from a variety of different perspectives: user reviews, statistical reviews, reviews from the perspective of different disciplines, and so on. This should reduce the inevitably conservative influence of relying on two or three peers, and make the evaluation system more critical, multi-dimensional and responsive to the requirements of different audience groups, changing circumstances, and new ideas. Non-peer review might make it easier to challenge dominant paradigms, and expanding the potential audience beyond a narrow group of peers might encourage the criterion of simplicity to be taken more seriously - which is essential if human knowledge is to continue to progress.
On Scientific Publication and Politics

Dimitri A. Christakis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.2999

2024-10-08

JAMA Pediatrics

Abstract:Science is an iterative and imperfect process that arcs toward truth. Increasingly, the process itself is being criticized because findings are sometimes contradictory. The COVID-19 epidemic put this into sharp relief as we learned more about the effectiveness of preventive and treatment actions and recommendations accordingly evolved. Findings were filtered, amplified, interpreted, and disseminated through political channels. JAMA Pediatrics remains committed to publishing the best science that advances all domains of pediatric health regardless of its political implications.

pediatrics
Better nanoscience through open, collaborative, and critical discussions

Nathanne Cristina Vilela Rost,Maha Said,Mustafa Gharib,Raphaël Lévy,Federico Boem

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/d3mh01781h

IF: 13.3

2024-04-06

Materials Horizons

Abstract:We aim to foster a discussion of science correction and of how individual researchers can improve the quality and control of scientific production. This is crucial because although the maintenance of rigorous standards and the scrupulous control of research findings and methods are sometimes taken for granted, in practice, we are routinely confronted with articles that contain errors.

materials science, multidisciplinary,chemistry
The ART and LOGIC of scholarly communication: Effective skills for publication and beyond

Yangming Martin Lo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.2766

2022-04-13

Abstract:Based on a series of well-recognized workshops around the world conducted by the author with more than 15 years of EIC experience, this article highlights the essence and spirit of publishing scholarly outcomes for authors in science and engineering. It is vital for all scientists who intend to upgrade their publications to bear in mind that, additional to KISS (Keep It Simple and Straightforward), the contents of a manuscript should be prepared based on the core concept of ART and LOGIC, namely: Thoroughness (be thorough when compiling) oComplete the sentence, paragraph, and articleReadability (keep the expression readable) oKnow what you mean and mean what you knowArticulateness (be articulate in wording) oBe polite yet firm, when necessary, with controversies and Lock one in ASAP oIdentify and be identical with the readersOffer useful information oJustification and reasoning are most criticalGain confidence oPut forth best methodology and know-howIndication of good will oBe constructive even when criticism is neededConclusive statement oProvide solid conclusion with proper outlook.
In This Issue, Psychoanalytic Dialogues 34-2

Stephen Hartman,Amy Schwartz Cooney,Jack Foehl,Lauren Levine

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10481885.2024.2329006

2024-04-24

Psychoanalytic Dialogues

Abstract:The work of producing a peer-reviewed journal involves keeping on top of a whirlwind of moving parts. We recruit submissions, assign reviewers, shepherd writers through the process of revising their articles for publication, and invite discussants to engage dynamically with the authors. Curating issues allows us to stand back and witness the scope and breadth of current writing in psychoanalysis. It's important to us to represent the range and diversity of voices, emerging and established, within our field. Thumb through the major journals, new format magazines, and newsletters; listen to podcasts and view short format videos, and it will be clear that it is a very demanding task, as one of our readers recently put it, to "hold the center."

psychology, psychoanalysis
The changing roles of scientific journals

Arturo Casadevall,Lorraine F. Clark,Ferric C. Fang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.02515-24

IF: 6.4

2024-10-05

mBio

Abstract:ABSTRACT After centuries of relative stability, the scientific publishing world has undergone tremendous disruption and change during the first decades of the 21st century. The causes for disruption can be traced to the information revolution, which brought such benefits as rapid publication, greater connectivity, and ready access to large databases, along with less desirable practices including image manipulation, plagiarism, and other ethical transgressions. The information revolution has driven the proliferation of journals, expansion of for-profit academic publishing, and empowerment of the open-access movement, each of which has exerted new financial pressures on traditional publishing models. As journals became the focal point for ethical concerns in science, they have adapted by increasing the scope of their duties, which now include archiving of data, enforcement of good practices, establishment of standards for rigor, and training the next generation of reviewers and editors. Here, we consider the seismic changes occurring in scientific publishing and place them into the context of a rapidly changing landscape of scientific and publishing norms.

microbiology
Can scientists and their institutions become their own open access publishers?

Karen Shashok

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1701.02461

2017-01-10

Abstract:This article offers a personal perspective on the current state of academic publishing, and posits that the scientific community is beset with journals that contribute little valuable knowledge, overload the community's capacity for high-quality peer review, and waste resources. Open access publishing can offer solutions that benefit researchers and other information users, as well as institutions and funders, but commercial journal publishers have influenced open access policies and practices in ways that favor their economic interests over those of other stakeholders in knowledge creation and sharing. One way to free research from constraints on access is the diamond route of open access publishing, in which institutions and funders that produce new knowledge reclaim responsibility for publication via institutional journals or other open platforms. I argue that research journals (especially those published for profit) may no longer be fit for purpose, and hope that readers will consider whether the time has come to put responsibility for publishing back into the hands of researchers and their institutions. The potential advantages and challenges involved in a shift away from for-profit journals in favor of institutional open access publishing are explored.

Digital Libraries,Computers and Society
In praise of the referee

Nicolas Chopin,Andrew Gelman,Kerrie L. Mengersen,Christian P. Robert

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1205.4304

2012-05-19

Abstract:There has been a lively debate in many fields, including statistics and related applied fields such as psychology and biomedical research, on possible reforms of the scholarly publishing system. Currently, referees contribute so much to improve scientific papers, both directly through constructive criticism and indirectly through the threat of rejection. We discuss ways in which new approaches to journal publication could continue to make use of the valuable efforts of peer reviewers.

Other Statistics,Digital Libraries,Physics and Society
Why should we promote public engagement with science?

Jack Stilgoe,Simon J. Lock,James Wilsdon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513518154

2014-01-01

Public Understanding of Science

Abstract:This introductory essay looks back on the two decades since the journal Public Understanding of Science was launched. Drawing on the invited commentaries in this special issue, we can see narratives of continuity and change around the practice and politics of public engagement with science. Public engagement would seem to be a necessary but insufficient part of opening up science and its governance. Those of us who have been involved in advocating, conducting and evaluating public engagement practice could be accused of over-promising. If we, as social scientists, are going to continue a normative commitment to the idea of public engagement, we should therefore develop new lines of argument and analysis. Our support for the idea of public engagement needs qualifying, as part of a broader, more ambitious interest in the idea of publicly engaged science.

communication,history & philosophy of science
Words Matter: Reflective Science Communication and Tradeoffs in Environmental Health Research

Kevin C Elliott,Heather B Patisaul,Robert M Sargis,Laura N Vandenberg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp14527

IF: 11.035

2024-10-31

Environmental Health Perspectives

Abstract:CONCLUSIONS: Researchers who seek to responsibly communicate societally relevant work can employ several strategies to mitigate difficult tradeoffs, including a) striving for sensitivity to the social context and its relationship to their framing choices, b) choosing to avoid some frames, c) employing frames that alleviate ethical tensions, d) fostering education to alleviate harms, e) developing interdisciplinary and community collaborations, and f) working with institutions like scientific...

environmental sciences,public, environmental & occupational health,toxicology
Free editors and peers: squeezing the lemon dry

Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva,Vedran Katavić

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ebce-2016-0011

2016-12-01

Abstract:Abstract In this opinion piece, some of the practices of academic publication in the biomedical field related to the rewarding, or the lack thereof, of peer reviewers are described and discussed. The role and possibly exploitative relationship of mainstream, established publishers of prestigious journals towards their contributors (authors), and peer reviewers is considered. In addition, the role and accountability of publishers and contributors in “predatory” journals is assessed. Professionals who are recruited by the publishing industry, especially the for-profit industry, either as peer reviewers or editors, to complete a professional task, should be rewarded financially as professionals, as for other sectors of the economy, and not simply exploited for free. Points systems or discounts off a publisher’s products do not constitute sufficient, or fair, compensation.
End of Publication? Open access and a new scholarly communication technology

Sergey Parinov,Victoria Antonova

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1608.05505

2016-08-19

Digital Libraries

Abstract:At this time, developers of research information systems are experimenting with new tools for research outputs usage that can expand the open access to research. These tools allow researchers to record research as annotations, nanopublications or other micro research outputs and link them by scientific relationships. If these micro outputs and relationships are shared by their creators publicly, these actions can initiate direct scholarly communication between the creators and the authors of the used research outputs. Such direct communication takes place while researchers are manipulating and organising their research results, e.g. as manuscripts. Thus, researchers come to communication before the manuscripts become traditional publications. In this paper, we discuss how this pre-publication communication can affect existing research practice. It can have important consequences for the research community like the end of publication as a communication instrument, the higher level of transparency in research, changes for the Open Access movement, academic publishers, peer-reviewing and research assessment systems. We analyse a background that exists in the economics discipline for experiments with the pre-publication communication. We propose a set of experiments with already existed and new tools, which can help with exploring the end of publication possible impacts on the research community.

Editorial: Keep the Conversation Going—The Importance of Post-publication Dialogue

Scientific journals should be transformed into science storytellers to improve their visibility

Editorial Essay: Why Do We Still Have Journals?

From impact metrics and open science to communicating research: Journalists' awareness of academic controversies

What Medical Journal Editing Means to Me

Editorial Policy As Conversation Aid

[Social Science editors in Public Health: practices and limits in the creation of a scientific habitus]

Publishing Biomedical Research: a rapidly evolving ecosystem

Exploring the Black Box of Journal Manuscript Review: A Survey of Social Science Journal Editors

Beyond Journals and Peer Review: Towards a More Flexible Ecosystem for Scholarly Communication

On Scientific Publication and Politics

Better nanoscience through open, collaborative, and critical discussions

The ART and LOGIC of scholarly communication: Effective skills for publication and beyond

In This Issue, Psychoanalytic Dialogues 34-2

The changing roles of scientific journals

Can scientists and their institutions become their own open access publishers?

In praise of the referee

Why should we promote public engagement with science?

Words Matter: Reflective Science Communication and Tradeoffs in Environmental Health Research

Free editors and peers: squeezing the lemon dry

End of Publication? Open access and a new scholarly communication technology