Storytelling for Science

I've been a good reviewer, not given in to unwarranted comments on laguage, not given in to unjustified criticism, and always submitting my reports on time.  I think I deserve some gifts 😝 Peer reviewer recognition wouldn't go amiss.  Here are some thoughts on how to make the academic reviewers in your life a bit happier, relaxed, and less prone to behaving like Reviewer 2 . 1. Institutions should allocate time for peer review within their faculty appointments The time it takes to do a good job with a peer review is often underestimated. ⏳ Given that this work is not financially compensated, at least time for it should be granted as part of the expected commitment to the scholarly community. 2. Graduate courses could teach peer review, much like they teach statistics There are techniques, concepts, and skills required to perform peer review. It is important t

Literally, I'm not being romantic or lyrical here. Patients' gender-related characteristics may partly explain traditional sex differences in risk factors for cardiovascular disease (such as for acute coronary syndrome ). The graph below shows that sex and gender are partly independent (which means, not totally separate but also not the same thing). Additionally, individuals with high feminine gender scores were twice as likely to be re-admitted to hospital and to experience worse prognoses following discharge after heart attack. Adapted from Pelletier, Roxanne PhD; Ditto, Blaine PhD; Pilote, Louise MD, MPH, PhD.  A Composite Measure of Gender and Its Association With Risk Factors in Patients With Premature Acute Coronary Syndrome. Psychosomatic Medicine 77(5):p 517-526, June 2015. DOI: 10.1097/PSY.0000000000000186 Now, I'm not saying that men act all tough in the presence of male doctors... but they do. Nor am I saying that birthing mothers feel more at ease to scre

Why are abstracts so important? A lot can be gleaned from the title and abstract . Most readers only go through the first page to gauge whether an article is of interest to them. ➜ These sections are therefore critical.  The abstract should clearly describe the main idea of the article; however, in papers "produced" by papermills , the abstract often does not match what is represented in the title. Other times, authors add keywords to titles/abstracts ( keyword stuffing ) to pass scope checks, but the actual content of the article is unrelated to the keywords. These discrepancies are even the main cause for declarations of concern by publishers. It is increasingly difficult to discern reality from fiction. A lot of this is caused by the ever increasing rise in submitted papers and lack of formal standards or guidelines for peer review. Moreover, the notion of reviewing as a professional obligation fails to sufficiently recognize or reward the burden it imposes. The rest

What's so special about this? Special issues are collections of papers centered around a subject of special interest and are organized and led by subject experts who take on the role of guest editor of the special issue. All submissions (...) are discoverable within the collection. MDPI A special Issue is a collection of articles that concentrates on a topical research area within the scope of a journal. Special Issues are targeted, timely, and insightful collections, meaning that they are often very well received. Hindawi A special issue focuses on a specific area of research that has a broad appeal and falls within the aims and scope of the journal. A special issue also provides an excellent opportunity to review a particular theme, examine previously unaddressed aspects, propose and develop new approaches, exchange perspectives and encourage new lines of research. Elsevier Special or themed issues can be a great way to focus attention on a topic of crucial interest. A good sp

For those unfamiliar with or new to academic publishing, peer review manipulation is hard to spot. This is mainly because most peer review reports are still confidential documents that stay buried deep in academic journal's editorial offices. As long as this continues to be the default, recognising good and bad peer reviews is difficult enough... now we have to worry about fake peer review as well?! 😒 Well, yes. Yes, we do. The peer review process in academic publishing is unlike any other. The style and content of a manuscript are criticized, as are the thought processes that birthed it. Everything from word choice to significance of the research focus is under scrutiny. In traditional peer review formats, reviewers recommend that manuscripts be accepted or rejected. This much power may make some less scrupulous people guiddy... or yearning to rig the system. The refereeing work that is supposed to be one of the garantors of research integrity is itself highly susceptible to ma

Money is still a dirty word in science. 💰 We sublimate "getting paid for your work" with expressions such as "was awarded a grant", "received recognition", "was presented a prize". Money is how we "fund" our activities or "source" our next project.   When I started working as a freelancer, it was the first time I had to think of how much my time is worth. 💱 So, I decided that my work would be measured in realized projects and client satisfaction, not how long it would take me to do the job: quality, regardless of effort . This is even noting how important it is to keep to deadlines . Being professional in your conduct means being able to estimate how long a task will take you, based on prior experience. Also, knowing when to take breaks to maintain consistency and accuracy. Within the allocated timeframe, freelancers are also expected to practice quality controls regularly, and self-correct. These are the kind of project m

Let's get opinionated... Peer review is still the cornerstone of quality research. This has been repeated by so many during #PeerReviewWeek2023 , it almost lost its meaning to me. I participated in this conversation wholeheartedly, as a freelancer with a variety of roles, from content review to integrity audits.  I’m no longer in academia, but I did my stint there: it’s hard to imagine that many PhD students and postdocs get excited by performing their first peer review. It often results from an invitation trickle-down and, although it can be regarded as a learning opportunity, peer review is hard, time-consuming, unpaid, and often unrecognized work. Open participation is often regarded by researchers as the fairer, more constructive and productive process, leading to improvement in the quality of the finished version of the works. This is the iterative version of having a preprint published in a stable server, with access to all versions of the work, and “comments on”.   The

It was OASPA's Conference on Open Scholarship , Peer Review Week , and then COPE's Publication Integrity Week . Starting 23rd October, will be International Open Access Week .  Too much networking... 😫   I needed a detox between very socially active weeks. So, I turned to reading.  I read on themes that piqued my interest after thinking about the way in which scholarly publishing has been changing in recent years. 📖 This week's only post (this one) is a listicle... but my thoughts have been brewing for more to come. In the mean time, here's what has been keeping me occupied. General writing/thinking: On Writing Well: The Classic Guide to Writing Nonfiction Thinking, Fast and Slow Bittersweet: How Sorrow and Longing Make Us Whole    Peer review and critical thinking: The Peer Review Process - A Complete Guide Redefining Healthcare Through Blockchain: The Next Era of Medical Innovation Why should I do a peer review? And you? What has been in your radar as insightful an

How was it for you? I'm tired, but I liked it... 😳 Listen... I made an effort! I really wanted this to come to the world fully formed yesterday...  It didn't happen. Too much information and "zooms" make me groggy... So, here we are. End of #PeerReviewWeek2023. My first full one.  How was it for you? I'm tired, but I liked it...      I promised a post a day, so I'm due one. This one. I want to tell you all about how I do this thing. Peer review is not an art form. It's work. We can break it down into a process. How do you become a good peer reviewer? Not to brag, but already doing it, I'm quite good 😎 ( did you see this? ) Here are some top tips: Read. In your area, in areas adjacent, sometimes in completely unrelated ones.  It's good to be aware of different styles and conventions, as they all have features we can learn from .  Reading keeps you up to speed with the latest developments in your field, and it is a good habit to maintain if you wan

I've had a busy couple of weeks, and it seems I'm just over the hump today. For someone such as me, used to dealing with a cat and not much more, attending conferences —even if virtually— is quite exhausting. But it's been worth it. I've learned a lot and got to know wonderful humans.   Dr Ana Persic is Programme Specialist for Science Technology and Innovation Policies and Open Science at the UNESCO Headquarters. She gave a very detailed and engaging presentation on what is open science.  According to the recommendation produced by UNESCO , This is all very well and good (really... it is!), but nobody would pay attention to it. Do you know how the audience felt attracted? With infographics .👇 If you say that the content is the same, you'd be wrong. Although it's the same text, this visual representation provides a stronger storytelling structure for a summary. And here, at Storytelling for Science, we really like those! This infographic also displays the ot