Academic publishing and scholarly communications: Good

reads, February 2016

In Jan 2016 the scholarly publishing landscape was abuzz with discussions on topics like gender bias, data sharing,
transparency in science, and the journal impact factor. What was being talked about in February 2016? We tracked
several science forums and blogs to identify some of the most recurrent themes discussed by people in the
academic publishing industry this month. Heres an overview of the top discussions. Happy reading!
1. Irreproducibility may be easily found but not so easily fixed: David B. Allison, a distinguished professor in the
Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Alabama, USA, and his
colleagues assembled a list of peer reviewed published articles in their field and found thatseveral of these
contained substantial or invalidating errors. Their work not only indicated commonly occurring invalidating
practices but also showed reactions of journals and authors when faced with mistakes that needed correction.
Based on their analysis, Allison and his colleagues recommend that journals, publishers, and scientific societies
should standardize and publicize processes that would help in fixing errors in published papers.
2. A project exposing discrepancies in published research: In a thought-provoking write-up, Ben Goldacre,
physician, author, and senior clinical research fellow at the University of Oxford, talks about how published
clinical research has been tainted by data dredging, selective reporting, and inadequate descriptions. Goldacre
and his colleagues have begun flagging with journals any discrepancies in the reporting of clinical trials in the
studies they published. Interestingly, not all journals have responded to these issues in the same way: while some
journals issued a correction, others failed to take the issue seriously. Goldacre insists that journal editors now
need to engage in a serious public discussion on why this is still happening.
3. Evaluating researchers contribution to society: More and more people in scholarly publishing are talking
about the need for researchers to reach out to a wider audience, including the general public, during the course of
their research and teaching activities. However, not much is available to researchers by way of incentives to
engage in such activities. The existing highly competitive career progression system in most academic institutions
leads them to invest heavily in supporting activities such as securing grants.Christopher Meyers argues that
academic career progression needs to include a single holistic and qualitative standard: teacher-scholars who are
evaluated based on their contribution toward educating, advancing ideas, creating an intellectual environment,
and bettering the lives of others.
4. Delays in journal publishing: Despite advances in publishing technology, the time-to-publication continues to
be long. Kendall Powell examined the time it took for a paper to get published after it was first submitted to a
journal, and found that waiting times have actually increased for popular open-access and high-profile journals.
This could be because journals are taking too long to review papers, and reviewers are making unreasonable
demands for additional data/revisions and new experiments. Multiple rejections by journals also add to the delay,
increasing the frustration of scientists. Here, Powell examines publication times across journal subsects, impact
factors, and disciplines, and suggests some solutions to circumvent the long publication route.
5. UK scientists seek clarity on anti-lobbying rule: According to a recent announcement by the UK
government, groups that receive public money will be banned from using those funds to try to influence either the
government or Parliament. If applied to all recipients of public funds, this ban could prohibit scientists from
sharing the policy implications of their work, or get involved in policy decisions for areas related to their research.
Researchers in the UK have raised the alarm about the announcement requesting that research grants be

exempted from this ban, which could affect scientists ability to comment on significant issues such as climate
change or medical regulation. How the government clarifies the doubts raised by the academic communitys
protests remains to be seen.
6. Frustrated US postdocs begin finding solutions themselves: The struggles faced by post docs are frequently
discussed on several forums. They include meager benefits, inadequate career progression opportunities, poor
stipends, and lack of appropriate training. These issues have been raised and pointed out repeatedly over the
years, even in high-level reports such as those published by the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS). However,
little progress seems to have been made in terms of actual measures to address them. Dissatisfied with the pace of
progress despite recommendations by universities, policymakers, and other stakeholders, more and more postdocs
are taking to activism to try to change the situation for themselves, reports Paul Smaglik.
7. The positive side of predatory journals: In a post that shares a refreshingly unique perspective, Jan Velterop
talks about how the emergence of predatory journals could actually be seen as a sign of growth in the academic
publishing industry. Even though predatory journals are not desirable, they change the monopoly journal
subscription model followed by libraries and force users to think before choosing the publications they want to
subscribe to. Of course, there are several critical aspects to be considered in this argument, but Veltrop makes a
convincing argument about viewing the predatory side of academic publishing in a different light.