Academic publishing and scholarly communications: Good reads, July 2016

Academic publishing and scholarly communications: Good reads, July 2016

Did your busy schedule keep you from following the greatest topics of discussion in the scholarly circles? Worry not! Our team of editors has been on top of the goings-on in academia and has curated a list of the most interesting discussions in the month of July. With exchanges whirring around influence factor and its efficacy, open access mandates, Research Exchange Framework, and such other topics, the month of July was certainly arousing. Here is a list of the most interesting deliberations. Glad reading!

1. A fight against the inappropriate use of influence factor: While it is widely acknowledged that the Journal Influence Factor is not an accurate measure of the quality of articles, the metric has continued to rule the academic publishing industry. Often, it is considered by researchers as the guiding factor to judge the quality of individual articles or even authors. In a stir towards transparency, the senior staff of Nature, Science, and other elite journals have authored an article (posted as a preprint on bioRxiv) that calls on journals to downplay the influence factor in favor of a metric that captures the range of citations received by articles published in a journal.

Two. The EU attempts to tackle Greece’s brain drain: In a stir to halt Greece’s brain drain, which has been plaguing the country since the 2015 economic crisis, the European Union’s investment bank has approved a €180-million loan to support the Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation (HFRI). The Greek government will top this amount up with €60 million. The European Investment Bank (EIB) uncommonly loans more than 50% of the cost of a project, but it agreed to raise its limit to 75% in this case as the 28 EU member states voted unanimously to make an exception, keeping in mind the need to develop fundamental research in Greece. This gives Greek researchers their very first ray of hope since the debt crisis. They are hopeful that with EIB demonstrating confidence in Greek science with this loan, they will be able to attract other sources of financing as well.

Three. Why international research collaborations deserve concentrate: The Royal Society collaborated with European Academies to release a joint statement upholding the value of scientific research. The statement emphasizes that many problems the world is facing today are of a global nature and that we need international research collaborations to solve them. This, in turn, means researchers should love greater mobility and receive equal opportunities for collaboration. Thus, imposing barriers to researcher mobility will not serve the larger cause of science and might be detrimental to all nations. The idea behind this statement was to alleviate some of the anxieties caused following the UK’s exit from the European Union earlier in June. Taking the concept further, the Society launched a social media campaign, #ScienceIsGlobal, and invited researchers from across the globe to post pictures of lab members who are from different nations.

Four. The role of authors in shaping open access mandates: The Society for Scholarly Publishing recently hosted a session titled “Open Access Mandates and Open Access ‘Mandates’: How Much Control Should Authors Have over Their Work?”, where Micah Vandegrift, Scholarly Communication Librarian at Florida State University, spoke about the need to streamline discussions regarding scholarly publishing. Often, it seems as however there is a constant war being waged inbetween two parties, e.g., inbetween open and closed access publishers or inbetween publishers and librarians. Micah argues that the reality is much deeper than a superficial conflict and that the publishing screenplay needs “greater transparency (honesty), more active/productive author voice in the discussion, and clearer straight-forward human readable contracts with options.” Micah’s persuasive argument urges all stakeholders in academic publishing to consider how “miseducation” about scholarly communication is doing more harm than good.

Five. A leading funding agency weighs its influence: In an unconventional budge, the European Research Council (ERC) exposed that it has conducted a pilot investigation of some of the studies it has funded. The agency funds basic research and gets applications from many prestigious researchers. While the ERC has funded thousands of studies till date, it wished to understand whether these studies have had an influence as was promised by the researchers. After analyzing 199 ended studies, the ERC concluded that 70% of the projects it funded have made scientific breakthroughs, while a mere 4% had no appreciable scientific output. Funding agencies usually depend on pre-assessment processes to gauge the influence of the studies they find, but the ERC’s initiative has received a positive response from the science community.

6. The latest REF report suggests switches to the current assessment system: The latest Research Excellence Framework (REF) report, worked on by economist Nicholas Stern (the chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Switch and the Environment), states that while the current research and scientific assessment system in the UK is fairly strong, it does need a few switches. These include cost reduction measures and gaming of the system. While the proposed switches might be considered from the long-term benefits perspective, they may cause some trouble for universities claiming credit for research papers written by staff before they joined and the very mobile group of early-career researchers who are not permitted to carry forward credit for their papers. The REF report also states that universities must submit all their staff for audits instead of a select few, and that the audit should concentrate on the university’s activities for enlargening research influence and public engagement as well as for training. Further, the report points out the need for enhanced recognition of interdisciplinary work.

7. The importance of funding the right research projects: Simon Gandevia, Deputy Director, Neuroscience Research Australia, discusses in an article the importance of funding research that can generate fresh skill instead of low-powered studies that lead to either low influence or inaccurate results. Despite the reproducibility crisis in science, governments and funding bods proceed to provide funds to research projects without cautiously assessing their potential influence. Discussing the unethical practices rampant in research today, that is, “hoaxing, forging, trimming and cooking the data,” Gandevia explains how the extreme competition in the academic world is forcing researchers to overpromise the potential influence of their studies or indulge in unethical practices. He emphasizes the fact that “Good science loses out when bad science gets the funding.” Therefore, he calls out to researchers, institutions, and governments to impose stringent selection processes for awarding funds.

This is it for July! Go after our monthly reading lists for more such interesting updates. And if you would like to stay tuned to significant happenings in the journal publishing industry, visit our Industry News section. 

Related video: English visual essay


You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *