Auditing published papers (part I)

After they have been published, I audit research papers. 

Image by @freepik

Why? How does that work? 😕

A new revised version of The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECCRI) has been produced by Allea, and recognised by the European Commission, one of the world's largest research funding bodies.

This revision focuses on a heightened awareness of issues pertaining to Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI), but also the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and even Open Science.

I know.. too much legal speak, too many acronyms... 😬

So, let me sum it up for you. 🔊

All institutions, organizations, and individuals that engage in or interact with research must always abide by the principles of:

  • Honesty

  • Respect  

  • Reliability  

  • Accountability 


Simple enough, right? Humm..

I analyse papers that have been flagged as "of concern". 😟

The issues I most commonly see have to do with lack of funding or data availability statements, inappropriate citations, and lack of clarity regarding the purpose of the study.

The most severe cases lack statements regarding ethical approval for studies involving people or animals, and/or informed consent to participate or publish. 😒

When authors can not provide these elements after they have been contacted by the publisher, the paper will be retracted.

If wilful misconduct is found, the paper will be retracted.

You get the gist... If you are serious about your research, get serious about your writing.

Good writing can appease a lot of these issues.

 

So, the ECCRI we were talking about above 👆

I'll focus mainly on what's important for publications:

  • Formal agreement on the sequence of authorship and acknowledgement of those that do not qualify for authorship

  • Disclosure of conflicts of interest and sources of funding.

  • Authors will be given credit if corrections are issued when prompted by a post-publication audit.

  • Negative results are results. Always submit them for publication.

  • Be clear regarding your assumptions, remaining uncertainties, and knowledge gaps. 

  • These criteria will be upheld in preprint servers as well as in all other publication forms.

 

Stay tuned for part II, where I'll talk about peer reviewing in research.

Comments

Post a Comment

Leave a comment!

London Book Fair 2024: challenges for publishers

Image
I went to London with a purpose. It’s always good to meet collaborators and friends, but I had other goals with my visit. You see, it’s never good when the decisions that impact us are arrived at without our input. I wanted to bring awareness of my new peer review standards project to those in the publishing industry that can benefit from them. I'm comfortable researching and reviewing, even editing and managing the peer review process, but hearing editors and publishers speak of the big picture issue was an eye-opener. Change is ever present The publishing industry fancies itself as having evolved to explore the heritage and lived experience of minorities, by more frequently placing a spotlight on hidden and undervalued communities. Jonathan Karp, who spoke on the current model of employee ownership that underpins his role as CEO at Simon & Schuster , perfectly exemplified this—with profits now being reinvested in the company, there’s a new collaborative
Read more

How to spot fake reviewers: a beginner's guide

Image
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
Read more

London Book Fair 2024: OA and AI

Image
In a survey on the trends of academic publishing conducted in 2023, reflecting on the need to reformulate the current business model was front of mind. The need to optimize operational efficiencies may stem from the increased adoption of open access (OA) policies. For those not in the know, OA is a practice that enables research outputs to be distributed online, free of access charges or other barriers, including the ability for copy or reuse, by applying an open license for copyright. The mandates  advocated by the Holdren Memo in the US, the Nelson Memo in the UK, and Plan S for the EU consolidated the view that unrestricted access to research publications is part of an integral right for transparency—we want to view the outcomes of taxpayer-funded research. However, many publishers follow a gold OA model and charge an article processing charge (APC), which is typically paid through institutional or grant funding. This means that readers don't pay, because t
Read more