The soul-crushing audit of special issues

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 special issue can enhance the profile of the journal, attract top authors, and support usage and citations. Sage


On the face of things, special issues are really useful and desirable for authors. I myself published a paper in a special topics issue (Machado et al, 2019). The justification for this was an invited presentation I gave at a conference, and its significance is given here (Butcher et al, 2019). It was particularly helpful to discuss the unusual ideas that this study elicited in the midst of scientists equally interested in understanding vessel maturity and control of blood flow. Top notch geeking out. 😬
 
A special issue usually stems from a call for papers 🔉 that should provide enough background information to entice submissions. This is a wonderful way for early career researchers to gain exposure and promote their profile, as they can become guest editors.
 
However, the real reason behind all this work is to influence how people think and perceive the topic —mainly funders. Thus, leading a special issue could prove to be a valuable asset when applying for grants. But the indirect monetary incentives for guest editors pale in comparison to those reaped by publishers. So, as with every good detective story, we need to follow the money. 💸

  1. Papers published in special issues still incur article processing charges. 

  2. The burden on editorial staff time is reduced, so less resources are allocated. 

  3. Guest editors coordinate the peer review process and invite reviewers themselves.

  4. Promotion through social networks is easily accomplished. 

As the articles in these issues are cited more often than the papers in regular issues of the same journal, this is a wonderful opportunity to increase journal impact factor, which is still the most common and relevant metric for researchers to decide where to publish.

Why discuss this now?

I have been auditing papers again lately, that is, performing post-publication integrity checks. Some of the problems I uncovered are the same as before, and could possibly have been spotted by more experienced editors. Notably, the most glaring and perturbing omissions pertain to studies involving people.

A study that involves human participants, human tissue (blood samples, donated organs, embryos, etc.), or human data (blood test results, blood pressure) should include a statement regarding whether the authors obtained approval from an ethics committee to undertake the study.

This ethical approval is distinct from a consent to participate, which should also be included. The study participants must have provided informed consent to take part in the study. Case reports notoriously require a separate consent to publish identifiable details, when any data about an individual person, such as radiological images, is included.

I'm not advocating for the extinction of special issues. They have their place and their merits. But they are highly independent from the normal editorial practices in terms of oversight, so much more prone to malicious manipulation. Appropriate training in editorial and publishing practices, especially peer review, is urgently required.

Recently, IOP Publishing launched the Trusted Reviewer certification. I'll be exploring this in detail next.



 
 

Comments

Post a Comment

Leave a comment!

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

Auditing published papers (part I)

Image
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 citati
Read more

IMHO: why open science should adopt double anonymous peer review

Image
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
Read more