Project description:In this article, we study the development of the STS journal article format since the 1980s. Our analysis is based on quantitative data that suggest that the diversity of various journal publication types has diminished over the past four decades, while the format of research articles has become increasingly typified. We contextualize these historical shifts in qualitative terms, drawing on a set of 76 interviews with STS scholars and other stakeholders in scholarly publishing. Here, we first portray the STS publication culture of the 1980s and early 1990s. We then contrast this with an analysis of publishing practices today, which are characterized by a much more structured research process that is largely organized around the production of typified journal articles. Whereas earlier studies have often emphasized the importance of rhetorical persuasion strategies as drivers in the development of scholarly communication formats, our analysis highlights a complementary and historically novel set of shaping factors, namely, increasingly quantified research (self-)assessment practices in the context of a projectification of academic life. We argue that reliance on a highly structured publication format is a distinct strategy for making STS scholarship 'doable' in the sense of facilitating the planning ability and daily conduct of research across a variety of levels - including the writing process, collaboration with peers, attracting funding, and interaction with journals. We conclude by reflecting on the advantages and downsides of the typification of journal articles for STS.
Project description:Citizen science involves the public in science to investigate research questions. Although citizen science facilitates learning in informal educational settings, little is known about its use or effects in postsecondary (college or university) settings. Using a literature review and a survey, we describe how and why citizen science is being used in postsecondary courses, as well as the impacts on student learning. We found that citizen science is used predominantly in biologically related fields, at diverse types of institutions, to improve student engagement and expose students to authentic research. Considerable anecdotal evidence supporting improved student learning from these experiences exists, but little empirical evidence exists to warrant any conclusion. Therefore, there is a need to rigorously assess the relationship between citizen science participation and postsecondary student learning. We highlight considerations for instructors planning to incorporate citizen science and for citizen science projects wanting to facilitate postsecondary use.
Project description:Fractionation of biomass by filtration is a standard method for sampling planktonic microbes. It is unclear how the taxonomic composition of filtered biomass changes depending on sample volume. Using seawater from a marine oxygen minimum zone, we quantified the 16S rRNA gene composition of biomass on a prefilter (1.6 μm pore-size) and a downstream 0.2 μm filter over sample volumes from 0.05 to 5 L. Significant community shifts occurred in both filter fractions, and were most dramatic in the prefilter community. Sequences matching Vibrionales decreased from ~40 to 60% of prefilter datasets at low volumes (0.05-0.5 L) to less than 5% at higher volumes, while groups such at the Chromatiales and Thiohalorhabdales followed opposite trends, increasing from minor representation to become the dominant taxa at higher volumes. Groups often associated with marine particles, including members of the Deltaproteobacteria, Planctomycetes, and Bacteroidetes, were among those showing the greatest increase with volume (4 to 27-fold). Taxon richness (97% similarity clusters) also varied significantly with volume, and in opposing directions depending on filter fraction, highlighting potential biases in community complexity estimates. These data raise concerns for studies using filter fractionation for quantitative comparisons of aquatic microbial diversity, for example between free-living and particle-associated communities.
Project description:Background. The need for timely, ethical, and high-quality reporting of clinical trial results has seen a rise in demand for publication professionals. These publication experts, who are not ghostwriters, work with leading medical researchers and funders around the world to plan and prepare thousands of publications each year. Despite the involvement of publication professionals in an increasing number of peer-reviewed publications, especially those that affect patient care, there is limited evidence-based guidance in the peer-reviewed literature on their publication practices. Similar to the push for editors and the peer-review community to conduct and publish research on publication ethics and the peer-review process, the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) has encouraged members to conduct and publish research on publication planning and practices. Our primary objective was to investigate the publication rate of research presented at ISMPP Annual Meetings. Methods. ISMPP Annual Meeting abstract lists (April 2009-April 2014) were searched in November 2014 and data were extracted into a pilot-tested spreadsheet. MEDLINE was searched in December 2014 to determine the publication rate (calculated as the % of presented abstracts published as full papers in peer-reviewed journals). Data were analyzed using the Cochran-Armitage trend test (significance: P < .05) by an independent academic statistician. Results. From 2009 to 2014, there were 220 abstracts submitted, 185 accepted, and 164 presented. There were four corresponding publications (publication rate 2.4%). Over time, ISMPP's abstract acceptance rate (overall: 84.1%) did not change, but the number of abstracts presented increased significantly (P = .02). Most abstracts were presented as posters (81.1%) and most research was observational (72.6%). Most researchers came from the US (78.0%), followed by Europe (17.7%), and the Asia-Pacific region (11.2%). Discussion. Research presented at ISMPP Annual Meetings has rarely been published in peer-reviewed journals. The high rate of nonpublication by publication professionals has now been quantified and is of concern. Publication professionals should do more to contribute to evidence-based publication practices, including, and especially, their own. Unless the barriers to publication are identified and addressed, the practices of publication professionals, which affect thousands of peer-reviewed publications each year, will remain hidden and unproven.
Project description:Current research ideologies in sport science allow for the possibility of investigators producing statistically significant results to help fit the outcome into a predetermined theory. Additionally, under the current Neyman-Pearson statistical structure, some argue that null hypothesis significant testing (NHST) under the frequentist approach is flawed, regardless. For example, a p-value is unable to measure the probability that the studied hypothesis is true, unable to measure the size of an effect or the importance of a result, and unable to provide a good measure of evidence regarding a model or hypothesis. Many of these downfalls are key questions researchers strive to answer following an investigation. Therefore, a shift towards a magnitude-based inference model, and eventually a fully Bayesian framework, is thought to be a better fit from a statistical standpoint and may be an improved way to address biases within the literature. The goal of this article is to shed light on the current research and statistical shortcomings the field of sport science faces today, and offer potential solutions to help guide future research practices.
Project description:ObjectivesPublication bias, non-publication, and selective reporting of animal studies limit progress toward the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement) that guide ethical animal testing, waste public resources, and result in redundant research, which collectively undermine the public's trust in scientific reliability. In this study, we aimed to 1) validate findings from a previous follow-up study by our team that examined the publication rates of animal studies from protocol to publication and 2) identify incentives for improving publication rates in animal research.MethodsThe researchers responsible for the animal proposals (n = 210) from our previous study were contacted as participants for a Web-based survey between October 2019 and April 2020. Question types varied between free text questions, answer options based on a 5-point Likert scale and closed yes/no questions.ResultsIn total, 78 researchers responsible for 101 of 210 animal study proposals participated, yielding a response rate of 48.1%. Results showed that the publication rate increased from 67% in our follow-up study to 70%. According to a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 = "not relevant" to 5 = "extremely relevant"), the most widely accepted suggestions for increasing publication rates were "Publication costs for open access journals are fully covered by funders or universities" (mean 4.02, SD 1.01), "Performance-based allocation of intramural funds for results reporting of animal research not supporting the initial hypothesis (including preprints and repositories)" (mean 3.37, SD 1.05), and "Researchers receive more information from scientific journals that also publish non-significant results" (mean 3.30, SD 1.02).ConclusionWhile the extent of publication and publication practices have been thoroughly investigated for clinical trials, less data is available for animal research to date. Therefore, the study contributes in complementing the picture of publication practice in animal research. Suggestions from our survey may help improve the publication rates of animal studies.
Project description:Laboratory courses provide a unique environment for students to engage in the practices of scientists and develop the skills necessary for a career in science. Research has indicated that inquiry-based laboratory activities, which allow students to make key decisions throughout the laboratory experiment, provide opportunities to develop these necessary skills and practices. This study focuses on characterizing laboratory experiments used in analytical chemistry courses for their level of inquiry and opportunities for engagement in scientific practices. Data for this analysis was collected from participants of the MICRO project, a project designed to assist instructors in adopting inquiry-based laboratory experiments. Laboratory experiments used by instructors prior to their involvement in the project and then during the semester of implementation of the inquiry-based laboratory experiments were analyzed for their level of inquiry and opportunities for engagement in scientific practices. We found that, despite an increase in the level of inquiry of laboratory materials, there was not an increase in prompted opportunities to engage students in all of the science practices. We also found that certain science practices were more likely to be prompted in certain sections of the laboratory materials, such as through the pre-laboratory and post-laboratory questions.
Project description:The use of citizen science for scientific discovery relies on the acceptance of this method by the scientific community. Using the Web of Science and Scopus as the source of peer reviewed articles, an analysis of all published articles on "citizen science" confirmed its growth, and found that significant research on methodology and validation techniques preceded the rapid rise of the publications on research outcomes based on citizen science methods. Of considerable interest is the growing number of studies relying on the re-use of collected datasets from past citizen science research projects, which used data from either individual or multiple citizen science projects for new discoveries, such as for climate change research. The extent to which citizen science has been used in scientific discovery demonstrates its importance as a research approach. This broad analysis of peer reviewed papers on citizen science, that included not only citizen science projects, but the theory and methods developed to underpin the research, highlights the breadth and depth of the citizen science approach and encourages cross-fertilization between the different disciplines.
Project description:BackgroundEvolving standards of good publication practice (GPP) and a survey conducted in 2009 of authors, who were investigators and researchers not employed by the company prompted changes to GSK Vaccines' publication practices. We conducted a follow-up survey in 2012 to assess the company's revised practices and to evaluate understanding of GPP among investigators and researchers who had previously authored at least one publication in collaboration with GSK Vaccines.MethodsThe 50-question web-based survey addressed authoring practices and transparency of decision-making. Investigators and researchers (n = 1,273) who had authored at least one publication reporting on GSK Vaccines-sponsored human research since 2007, were invited to participate. Responses to 37 closed questions are presented. The remaining 13 questions were open-ended or did not concern publication practices.ResultsA total of 415 external authors (32.6%) responded. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship criteria were clear to most respondents (78.1%); 7.7% found they were unclear. The majority of participants (86.8%) found GSK Vaccines' authorship questionnaire a suitable tool to assess eligibility for authorship as per the ICMJE criteria. However, only 68.5% felt that the outcome of the questionnaire is communicated appropriately and 58.3% felt well informed on changes in authorship. Nearly two-thirds (62.9%) of respondents felt that having a pharmaceutical company employee as lead author makes manuscript acceptance less likely. Access to relevant data was regarded as sufficient by 78.5% of respondents. Briefing meetings before publication start, publication steering committees and core writing teams were recognized as valuable publication practices. Professional medical writing support was seen as adding value to publication development by 87.7% of participants. Most respondents agreed that manuscript discussions should start early, with 81.7% stating that they were in favor of introducing a formalized 'author agreement' at the publication start.ConclusionsGSK Vaccines made changes to its publication practices to ensure improved transparency and better involvement of external authors. The results of this survey suggest that these changes have been effective to a large extent. They confirm the need for effective and timely communication, as well as transparent processes for authorship and decision-making during publication development. The identified gaps in GPP will help to guide further improvements to the company's policies on publication practices.
Project description:A systematic review of the literature was conducted to identify course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) courses within the years 2000 through 2020. The goals of this review were to 1) create a resource of STEM CUREs identified by their discipline, subdiscipline, and level; 2) determine the activities included in each CURE, particularly the primary components listed in the CURE definition as well as specific science practices we identified as key to scientific reasoning; and 3) identify the next steps needed in CURE creation and implementation. Our review found 242 CURE curricula described in 220 total articles, with most described in biology, although STEM disciplines, including chemistry and biochemistry, have begun to publish CURE curricula as well. We also found that most CUREs include the primary components. However, when we look at the specific science practices essential to scientific reasoning, we found that these are less common in many CUREs and are implemented differently. We encourage CURE authors to consider including these science practices and potentially measuring their impact on student outcomes. The present work provides a summary of the current published CUREs, their disciplines, course levels, primary components, and specific science practices.