Storytelling for Science

Pride month just finished... So why is this relevant for academic publishing? I have a conflict of interest, as this is personal to me. This also means I feel obligated to clarify, educate, and mitigate biases whenever possible.  Sex refers to a set of biological attributes in humans and animals that are associated with physical and physiological features, including chromosome expression, hormone function, and reproductive/sexual anatomy. Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, and identities of female, male, and gender-diverse people. It influences how people perceive themselves and each other, how they behave and interact, and the distribution of power and resources in society. Terms that define identity Apart from gay men, lesbians, and bisexual people, it is necessary to recognize, Asexual : An individual who experiences a lack of attraction to other persons of any sex or gender. Pansexual : An individual who experiences attraction to people regardless of g...

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...

Medical journals have specific instructions for authors, including word counts and format (see example here ).   Abiding by style guides is often what takes the most time when authors wish to re-submit papers to different journals, especially when English is not their first language. Although some publications embrace the use of templates , others have opted to allow for free-form first submission. I started working on research manuscripts by focusing at the paragraph level. This microediting examined the function of the language, to determine whether it supported the author’s intention.  The goal of microediting is to  increase the value of the document  by improving grammar, syntax, style,  tone, clarity, and credibility. I'm much more interested in the content. Substantive editing permits the shaping of the broad focus, or architecture, of a scientific document. Let's call it the big picture . The goal of macroediting is to  ensure that authors are conv...

The papers I audit passed peer review before publication? Well… sometimes it does not look like they did. 😒 The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECCRI) states that:  “Researchers (must) take seriously their commitment and responsibility to the research community, through refereeing, reviewing, and assessment” Illustration by Mohamed_hassan. Most of the time, scientists review the work of their peers solely for peer recognition. Gratification may never happen. When were you ever paid for that? 💸 Reviewers are obliged to confidentiality 🙊, must declare actual or perceived conflicts of interest 🙉, and respect the rights of authors 🙈 (i.e., not use the ideas/findings they are reviewing for their own research without permission). With so little in terms of rewards, why would you do this immensely challenging, labour-intensive, and unpaid work? Because the cost of not doing it far outweighs the discomfort. 💪 Peer review has uncovered: Fabrication: making up data. F...

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 c...