Current market rates for scholarly publishing services [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Grossmann A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8276192 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10979128 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To increase transparency in science, some scholarly journals are publishing peer review reports. But it is unclear how this practice affects the peer review process. Here, we examine the effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals involved in a pilot study at Elsevier. By considering 9,220 submissions and 18,525 reviews from 2010 to 2017, we measured changes both before and during the pilot and found that publishing reports did not significantly compromise referees' willingness to review, recommendations, or turn-around times. Younger and non-academic scholars were more willing to accept to review and provided more positive and objective recommendations. Male referees tended to write more constructive reports during the pilot. Only 8.1% of referees agreed to reveal their identity in the published report. These findings suggest that open peer review does not compromise the process, at least when referees are able to protect their anonymity.
| S-EPMC6338763 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Publishing peer review materials alongside research articles promises to make the peer review process more transparent as well as making it easier to recognise these contributions and give credit to peer reviewers. Traditionally, the peer review reports, editors letters and author responses are only shared between the small number of people in those roles prior to publication, but there is a growing interest in making some or all of these materials available. A small number of journals have been publishing peer review materials for some time, others have begun this practice more recently, and significantly more are now considering how they might begin. This article outlines the outcomes from a recent workshop among journals with experience in publishing peer review materials, in which the specific operation of these workflows, and the challenges, were discussed. Here, we provide a draft as to how to represent these materials in the JATS and Crossref data models to facilitate the coordination and discoverability of peer review materials, and seek feedback on these initial recommendations.
| S-EPMC6206614 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cohort studies collect, generate and distribute data over long periods of time – often over the lifecourse of their participants. It is common for these studies to host a list of publications (which can number many thousands) on their website to demonstrate the impact of the study and facilitate the search of existing research to which the study data has contributed. The ability to search and explore these publication lists varies greatly between studies. We believe a lack of rich search and exploration functionality of study publications is a barrier to entry for new or prospective users of a study’s data, since it may be difficult to find and evaluate previous work in a given area. These lists of publications are also typically manually curated, resulting in a lack of rich metadata to analyse, making bibliometric analysis difficult. We present here a software pipeline that aggregates metadata from a variety of third-party providers to power a web based search and exploration tool for lists of publications. Alongside core publication metadata (i.e. author lists, keywords etc.), we include geocoding of first authors and citation counts in our pipeline. This allows a characterisation of a study as a whole based on common locations of authors, frequency of keywords, citation profile etc. This enriched publications metadata can be useful for generating study impact metrics and web-based graphics for public dissemination. In addition, the pipeline produces a research data set for bibliometric analysis or social studies of science. We use a previously published list of publications from a cohort study as an exemplar input data set to show the output and utility of the pipeline here.
| S-EPMC8108552 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Mounting evidence indicates that worldwide, innovation systems are increasing unsustainable. Equally, concerns about inequities in the science and innovation process, and in access to its benefits, continue. Against a backdrop of growing health, economic and scientific challenges global stakeholders are urgently seeking to spur innovation and maximize the just distribution of benefits for all. Open Science collaboration (OS) - comprising a variety of approaches to increase open, public, and rapid mobilization of scientific knowledge - is seen to be one of the most promising ways forward. Yet, many decision-makers hesitate to construct policy to support the adoption and implementation of OS without access to substantive, clear and reliable evidence. In October 2017, international thought-leaders gathered at an Open Science Leadership Forum in the Washington DC offices of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to share their views on what successful Open Science looks like. Delegates from developed and developing nations, national governments, science agencies and funding bodies, philanthropy, researchers, patient organizations and the biotechnology, pharma and artificial intelligence (AI) industries discussed the outcomes that would rally them to invest in OS, as well as wider issues of policy and implementation. This first of two reports, summarizes delegates' views on what they believe OS will deliver in terms of research, innovation and social impact in the life sciences. Through open and collaborative process over the next months, we will translate these success outcomes into a toolkit of quantitative and qualitative indicators to assess when, where and how open science collaborations best advance research, innovation and social benefit. Ultimately, this work aims to develop and openly share tools to allow stakeholders to evaluate and re-invent their innovation ecosystems, to maximize value for the global public and patients, and address long-standing questions about the mechanics of innovation.
| S-EPMC7839829 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This article discusses the open-identity label, i.e., the practice of disclosing reviewers' names in published scholarly books, a common practice in Central and Eastern European countries. This study's objective is to verify whether the open-identity label is a type of peer-review label (like those used in Finland and Flanders, i.e., the Flemish part of Belgium), and as such, whether it can be used as a delineation criterion in various systems used to evaluate scholarly publications. We have conducted a two-phase sequential explanatory study. In the first phase, interviews with 20 of the 40 largest Polish publishers of scholarly books were conducted to investigate how Polish publishers control peer reviews and whether the open-identity label can be used to identify peer-reviewed books. In the other phase, two questionnaires were used to analyze perceptions of peer-review and open-identity labelling among authors (n = 600) and reviewers (n = 875) of books published by these 20 publishers. Integrated results allowed us to verify publishers' claims concerning their peer-review practices. Our findings reveal that publishers actually control peer reviews by providing assessment criteria to reviewers and sending reviews to authors. Publishers rarely ask for permission to disclose reviewers' names, but it is obvious to reviewers that this practice of disclosing names is part of peer reviewing. This study also shows that only the names of reviewers who accepted manuscripts for publication are disclosed. Thus, most importantly, our analysis shows that the open-identity label that Polish publishers use is a type of peer-review label like those used in Flanders and Finland, and as such, it can be used to identify peer-reviewed scholarly books.
| S-EPMC6433260 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Peer review is the cornerstone of scholarly publishing and it is essential that peer reviewers are appointed on the basis of their expertise alone. However, it is difficult to check for any bias in the peer-review process because the identity of peer reviewers generally remains confidential. Here, using public information about the identities of 9000 editors and 43000 reviewers from the Frontiers series of journals, we show that women are underrepresented in the peer-review process, that editors of both genders operate with substantial same-gender preference (homophily), and that the mechanisms of this homophily are gender-dependent. We also show that homophily will persist even if numerical parity between genders is reached, highlighting the need for increased efforts to combat subtler forms of gender bias in scholarly publishing.
| S-EPMC5360442 | biostudies-literature
Project description:MotivationReproducing the results from a scientific paper can be challenging due to the absence of data and the computational tools required for their analysis. In addition, details relating to the procedures used to obtain the published results can be difficult to discern due to the use of natural language when reporting how experiments have been performed. The Investigation/Study/Assay (ISA), Nanopublications (NP), and Research Objects (RO) models are conceptual data modelling frameworks that can structure such information from scientific papers. Computational workflow platforms can also be used to reproduce analyses of data in a principled manner. We assessed the extent by which ISA, NP, and RO models, together with the Galaxy workflow system, can capture the experimental processes and reproduce the findings of a previously published paper reporting on the development of SOAPdenovo2, a de novo genome assembler.ResultsExecutable workflows were developed using Galaxy, which reproduced results that were consistent with the published findings. A structured representation of the information in the SOAPdenovo2 paper was produced by combining the use of ISA, NP, and RO models. By structuring the information in the published paper using these data and scientific workflow modelling frameworks, it was possible to explicitly declare elements of experimental design, variables, and findings. The models served as guides in the curation of scientific information and this led to the identification of inconsistencies in the original published paper, thereby allowing its authors to publish corrections in the form of an errata.AvailabilitySOAPdenovo2 scripts, data, and results are available through the GigaScience Database: http://dx.doi.org/10.5524/100044; the workflows are available from GigaGalaxy: http://galaxy.cbiit.cuhk.edu.hk; and the representations using the ISA, NP, and RO models are available through the SOAPdenovo2 case study website http://isa-tools.github.io/soapdenovo2/.Contactphilippe.rocca-serra@oerc.ox.ac.uk and susanna-assunta.sansone@oerc.ox.ac.uk.
| S-EPMC4495984 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Bladder adenocarcinoma (AC) is a scarce histological variant and there are few studies on its proper management. No previous case reports present the management of a urachal tumor and the incidental finding of bladder adenocarcinoma. Clinical case: We present the case of a young woman with nonspecific symptoms, who presented with a prior history of dysuria, bladder tenesmus, suprapubic pain and urinary urgency for one year, which had been treated as recurrent urinary tract infection. A partial cystectomy plus extended lymphadenectomy was scheduled. We found a bladder tumor with characteristics of a urachal tumor and the pathological report indicated a primary bladder AC. The patient had a complete recovery at one year of follow-up. Conclusions: A patient can present with a tumor with urachal characteristics; however, the pathology report can show primary AC. The decision to perform partial cystectomy was an appropriate option for the location of this tumor, with optimal surgical results. Still, a long-term follow-up is necessary. More specific management guidelines are required for the treatment of AC.
| S-EPMC7416577 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Areas of open science (OS) policy and practice are already relatively well-advanced in several countries and sectors through the initiatives of some governments, funders, philanthropy, researchers and the community. Nevertheless, the current research and innovation system, including in the focus of this report, the life sciences, remains weighted against OS. In October 2017, thought-leaders from across the world gathered at an Open Science Leadership Forum in the Washington DC office of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to share their views on what successful OS looks like. We focused on OS partnerships as this is an emerging model that aims to accelerate science and innovation. These outcomes are captured in a first meeting report: Defining Success in Open Science. On several occasions, these conversations turned to the challenges that must be addressed and new policies required to effectively and sustainably advance OS practice. Thereupon, in this report, we describe the concerns raised and what is needed to address them supplemented by our review of the literature, and suggest the stakeholder groups that may be best placed to begin to take action. It emerges that to be successful, OS will require the active engagement of all stakeholders: while the research community must develop research questions, identify partners and networks, policy communities need to create an environment that is supportive of experimentation by removing barriers. This report aims to contribute to ongoing discussions about OS and its implementation. It is also part of a step-wise process to develop and mobilize a toolkit of quantitative and qualitative indicators to assist global stakeholders in implementing high value OS collaborations. Currently in co-development through an open and international process, this set of measures will allow the generation of needed evidence on the influence of OS partnerships on research, innovation, and critical social and economic goals.
| S-EPMC7845503 | biostudies-literature