I made my first New Year’s resolution on December 31, 2013: to only undertake reviews for open access and learned society journals. This I have stuck to well, as I noted a year later for the simple reasons that it makes sense and it frees up my time.
Today I had a request to review a manuscript for Nature Publishing Group’s Scientific Reports, and I realised that I need to clarify my position.
I am on strike.
That is, I withdraw my labour for reviewing requests from:
(i) Commercial closed access journals.
(ii) The large commercial publishing houses regardless of whether the journal is open or closed access.
(iii) Vanity publishers (for some reason called “predatory”, but the old term ‘vanity’ is a much better descriptor).
In addition, on receipt of a request to review, I may request the data sharing/open data policy of the journal. For the time being this will be a carrot, but in due course I am likely to refuse to review if the journal does not have a clear open data policy, regardless of open access/learned society status.
At some point in the future I will request the journal policy on how reader concerns are dealt with. There are far too many valid queries relating to data on Pubpeer that a good many journals are not dealing with in a transparent manner.
Posted in Open Access, Peer review, Post publication peer review, Science process, Science publishing | Tagged Open Access, Open Data, Post publication peer review, Research integrity, science, Science progress | 1 Comment »
This is a question raised at the end of the excellent article by @Amy_Harmon regarding Open Access and preprints is can biomedical scientists evaluate each other without journals?
The short answer is a resounding yes. Physical scientists and mathematicians have been posting much of their research as preprints on arXiv for a few decades, with no prejudice to their ability to evaluate the quality of work or of individuals.
The counter argument raised by many in biomedical sciences, from scientists to some journal editors can be boiled down quite simply: We are special and cannot possibly do this.
Various arguments are put forward, from competition (=fear of scooping) to intellectual property. These arguments are heard in many biomedical/biology departments, sometimes leading to quite heated discussions. It is also interesting to note that the defenders of the status quo are not necessarily the older members of the community.
There is a simple answer. Yes you are special, but not in the good sense of the word. Continue Reading »
Posted in Science process, Science publishing, Scientific progress | Tagged REF, research, Research Excellence Framework, science, Science progress | 1 Comment »
A tweet brought me to a PeerJ blog post on the uptake of open peer review. The post is worth reading. At PeerJ open review is an option – authors and reviewers can opt in or out, and only if both opt in is the reviewing history of a paper published. One thing that caught my eye was that while 80% of authors opt in, the total number of paper with open reviews is just 40%, which indicates that reviewers are more reticent. Continue Reading »
Posted in Open Access, Peer review, Science process, Science publishing | Tagged research, science, Science progress | Leave a Comment »
This post assembles various comments I have posted and other thoughts on sci-hub and access to the scientific literature. It finishes with some ideas about what we should consider keeping and some of my better experiences, as a consumer and producer of the scientific literature.
Some time between clay tablet and the PDF
Once upon a time manuscripts were hand written, double spaced (fountain pen as ever outperforming all other tools), graphs transferred to tracing paper using a rotoring pen and Letraset (also alive and well) used for symbols. Continue Reading »
Posted in Open Access, Science process, Science publishing, Scientific progress | Tagged Open Access, Open Data, research, science, Science progress | Leave a Comment »
During a quick scan this morning of the “recent” comments on Pubpeer, an activity that I pursue regularly, as part of my reading, there seemed to be a lot more author responses. So I counted.
70 articles featured with comments.
10 of these had an author response.
This is progress. I have no data, but my impression is that a year ago author comments were far rarer, maybe 1% or thereabouts. Now we are at 14%. Let’s hope this is not an anomaly, but a trend, and maybe in a few years papers without author responses will be in the minority.
Regardless of arguments about anonymity, etc., post publication peer review is growing, which is a sign of health in the scientific enterprise.
Posted in Post publication peer review, Science process, Scientific progress | Tagged research, Research integrity, science, Science fraud, Science progress | 4 Comments »
Our review on fibroblast growth factors (FGFs) as tissue repair and regeneration factors, which we made available as a preprint from the time of submission is now published at PeerJ. Continue Reading »
Posted in Biochemistry, Development, Fibroblast growth factor, Glycobiology, Peer review, Science process, Science publishing | Tagged extracellular matrix, FGF, Fibroblast growth factor, glycosaminoglycan, heparan sulfate, regenerative medicine, tissue repair | Leave a Comment »