New year, new experiences

I started the year teaching... I had never taught part of an online workshop before. I attended many and may even have thought about it, but I wasn't sure I had anything new to say. It turns out, I kind of did. 

I focused on how to best write the methods section of a research paper in the life sciences. To some people, this is the easiest section to write because it does not involve much “story”, it is instead a description of all the steps taken that led to the study’s findings. 

A clear methods section impacts editorial evaluation and readers’ understanding. Transparency creates trust and is the key to ensuring the credibility of the research. Reproducibility relies on detail, so never  methods should never be summarized or abbreviated without giving full details in a discoverable supplemental section.

I learned a lot in the last 3 years. Regarding writing, publishing, and science communication. But there are concepts that researchers still have not fully adopted, either by lack of knowledge, lack of accessible explanatory resources, or simple inertia.

 

Let me give you the highlights:





The thing about methods, is that they are not protocols.

 

Protocols need to be detailed, clear, transparent, complete, reliable, and accessible. Most importantly, they need to be reproducible.


Protocols change, they evolve, and are adapted by others. The detailed features of these protocols, structured in a step-by-step format, make them reusable. Dynamic protocol sharing platforms reflect this reality, by allowing versioning and forking.

The expansion of protocol sharing led to the establishment of detailed guidelines for preprints, and validation sections were introduced in protocol articles to make them transferable (across research groups). 

 

And, finally....

 


 




 


 

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