ARTICLE | doi:10.20944/preprints201808.0492.v1
Subject: Social Sciences, Library & Information Science Keywords: bibliometrics; publication statistics; open Access; citation impact
Online: 29 August 2018 (10:32:21 CEST)
Based on the total scholarly article output of Norway, we investigated the coverage and degree of openness according to three bibliographic services 1) Google Scholar, 2) oaDOI by Impact Story and 3) 1findr by 1science. According to Google Scholar, we find that more than 70% of all Norwegian articles are openly available. However, degrees are profoundly lower according to oaDOI and 1findr, respectively 31% and 52%. Varying degrees are mainly caused by different interpretations of openness, with oaDOI being most restrictive. Furthermore, open shares vary considerably by discipline, with the Medcine and Health sciences at the upper and the Humanities at the lower end. We also determined the citation frequencies using Cited-by values as of Google Scholar, applying year and subject normalization. We find a significant citation advantage for open articles. However, this is not the case for all types of openness. In fact, the category Open Access journals was by far lowest cited, indicating that young journals with a declared open access policy still lack recognition.
ARTICLE | doi:10.20944/preprints202201.0311.v1
Subject: Social Sciences, Econometrics & Statistics Keywords: Statistical inference; p-hacking; pre-registration; publication bias; replication crisis
Online: 20 January 2022 (15:32:13 CET)
A vivid debate is ongoing in the scientific community about statistical malpractice and the related publication bias. No general consensus exists on the consequences and this is reflected in heterogeneous rules defined by scientific journals on the use and reporting of statistical inference. This paper aims at discussing how the debate is perceived by the agricultural economics community and implications for our roles as researchers, contributors to the scientific publication process, and teachers. We start by summarizing the current state of the p-value debate and the replication crisis, and commonly applied statistical practices in our community. This is followed by motivation, design, results and discussion of a survey on statistical knowledge and practice among the researchers in the agricultural economics community in Austria, Germany and Switzerland. We conclude that beyond short-term measures like changing rules of reporting in publications, a cultural change regarding empirical scientific practices is needed that stretches across all our roles in the scientific process. Acceptance of scientific work should largely be based on the theoretical and methodological rigor and where the perceived relevance arises from the questions asked, the methodology employed, and the data used but not from the results generated. Revised and clear journal guidelines, the creation of resources for teaching and research, and public recognition of good practice are suggested measures to move forward.
ARTICLE | doi:10.20944/preprints201808.0497.v1
Subject: Social Sciences, Library & Information Science Keywords: Journal ranking; Publication; Mathematical Algorithm; Academic Research; Promotion; Quantitative; Developing Countries.
Online: 29 August 2018 (13:10:13 CEST)
Academic publishing appears to be the most important key of the academic functions (academic research, excellence in teaching and learning and community services). Selecting the right journal to publish research results is a challenge to academics. Yet, there is inadequate knowledge about a model specifically directed at the topic of the journal selection process with a mathematical certainty. The objectives of this research are: to identify the main factors that an author or researchers consider when selecting an academic journal for submitting a manuscript, and, to develop a mathematical algorithm of journal selection that provide the best journal choice with a mathematical certainty based on difficulty of each factor. Quantitative research through questionnaires has been applied as an appropriate instrument base to address the researcher’s identification of the factors that should be considered when selecting a journal. Questionnaire developed and emailed to academics in 31 public and private universities in the developing countries. Academics reported that the most important publication difficulty factors were publishing in reputable journals, and publishing in a journal that has an impact factor. However, the most least publication difficulty factors were found to be: number of issues per year and if the journal is an open access. The proposed mathematical algorithm of journal’s publication difficulty factors was developed and tested.
ARTICLE | doi:10.20944/preprints201804.0068.v1
Subject: Keywords: reproducibility crisis; replication crisis; data reliability; bias; publication bias; meta-research
Online: 5 April 2018 (10:54:09 CEST)
A lack of data reproducibility (“reproducibility crisis”) is debated across many scientific and medical disciplines. A systematic analysis of the available evidence on the reliability of scientific data revealed that, although the existence of a reproducibility crisis is widely perceived, conclusive data on the scale of the problem are lacking. Most importantly we found that, although the debate is largely focused on methodological issues, researcher conduct defines research standards and in turn data reliability. The availability of reliable methods itself does not guarantee good practice. Moreover, research is typically characterised by a lack of established methods due to its immanent novelty. Despite the crucial importance of researcher conduct, research and conclusive data on the determinants of researcher behaviour are missing. In conclusion, meta-research is urgently needed that establishes an understanding of the factors that determine researcher behaviour. This knowledge can then be used to implement and iteratively improve measures, which incentivise researchers to apply the highest standards resulting in high quality data.
ARTICLE | doi:10.20944/preprints202209.0202.v1
Subject: Mathematics & Computer Science, Information Technology & Data Management Keywords: alive publication; dynamic component of bibliographic reference; latest revision date; Crossref; arXiv.org
Online: 14 September 2022 (09:13:08 CEST)
The scientific work posted on the Internet, which its author constantly keeps up to date, will be called an alive publication. The genre of alive publishing has many attractive features. However, it requires a certain expansion of the composition of the meta-attributes of the publication: along with the traditional attributes, the date of the appearance of the new, fresh revision is brought to the fore here. Such date is placed in a prominent place in the text of the publication. Along with this, it becomes highly desirable to include such a dynamically ("on the fly") generated date in a bibliographic reference to an alive publication. The currently used methods of dynamic extraction of this date are considered for a simple online publication, for a publication that has received a DOI through Crossref, and for a publication posted in arXiv.org. Thanks to adding this meta-attribute, references to alive publications will beautify any bibliographic list.
REVIEW | doi:10.20944/preprints201807.0467.v1
Subject: Medicine & Pharmacology, Obstetrics & Gynaecology Keywords: caffeine; coffee; epidemiology; recall bias; misclassification; residual confounding; reverse causation; publication bias
Online: 25 July 2018 (05:57:48 CEST)
Consumption of coffee by women early in their pregnancy has been viewed as potentially increasing the risk of miscarriage, low birth weight, and childhood leukemias. Many of these reports of epidemiologic studies have not acknowledged the potential biases inherent in studying the relationship between early-pregnancy-coffee consumption and subsequent events. I discuss five of these biases, recall bias, misclassification, residual confounding, reverse causation, and publication bias. Each might account for claims that attribute adversities to early-pregnancy-coffee consumption. To what extent these biases can be avoided remains to be determined. At a minimum, they need to be acknowledged wherever they might account for what is reported.
ARTICLE | doi:10.20944/preprints201607.0035.v1
Subject: Social Sciences, Education Studies Keywords: graduate student publishing; scholarly publication; research writing; productive academic writing; academic publishing, autoethnography
Online: 15 July 2016 (04:57:30 CEST)
For doctoral students, publishing in peer reviewed journals is a task many face with anxiety and trepidation. The world of publishing, from choosing a journal, negotiating editors and navigating reviewers’ responses is a bewildering place. Looking in from the outside, it seems that successful and productive academic writers have knowledge that is inaccessible to novice scholars. While there is a growing literature on writing for scholarly publication, many of these publications promote writing and publishing as a straight-forward activity that anyone can achieve if they follow the rules. We argue that the specific and situated contexts in which academic writers negotiate publishing practices is more complicated and messy. In this paper, we attempt to make explicit our publishing processes to highlight the complex nature of publishing. We use autoethnographic narratives to provide discussion points and insights into the challenges of publishing peer reviewed articles. One narrative is by a doctoral student at the beginning of her publishing career, who expresses her desires, concerns and anxieties about writing for publication. The other narrative focuses on the publishing practices of a more experienced academic writer. Both are international scholars working in the Canadian context. The purpose of this paper is to explore academic publishing through the juxtaposition of these two narratives to make explicit some of the more implicit processes. Four key themes emerge from these narratives. To publish successfully, academic writers need: 1) to be discourse analysts; 2) to have a critical competence; and 3) to have writing fluency and 4) to be emotionally intelligent.
ARTICLE | doi:10.20944/preprints202003.0016.v1
Subject: Arts & Humanities, Other Keywords: open research practices; digital humanities; scholarly communication; publication formats; infrastructure; research methodology; research tools
Online: 1 March 2020 (15:50:52 CET)
The digital transformation has initiated a paradigm shift in research and scholarly communication practices towards a more open scholarly culture. Although this transformation is slowly happening in the Digital Humanities field, open is not yet default. The article introduces the OpenMethods metablog, a community platform that highlights open research methods, tools, and practices within the context of the Digital Humanities by republishing open access content around methods and tools in various formats and languages. It also describes the platform’s technical infrastructure based on its requirements and main functionalities, and especially the collaborative content sourcing and editorial workflows. The article concludes with a discussion of the potentials of the OpenMethods metablog to overcome barriers towards open practices by focusing on inclusive, community sourced information based around opening up research processes and the challenges that need to be overcome to achieve its goals.
REVIEW | doi:10.3390/sci2040076
Subject: Keywords: academic journals; publishing; seal of approval; impact factor; h-index; anonymous refereeing; continuous and discrete frequency of publications; avoidance of time wasting; seeking adventure; open access; academic publishing as a continuous dynamic process; improving research after publication; internet
Online: 15 October 2020 (00:00:00 CEST)
Many academics are critical of the current publishing system, but it is difficult to create a better alternative. This review relates to the Sciences and Social Sciences, and discusses the primary purpose of academic journals as providing a seal of approval for perceived quality, impact, significance, and importance. The key issues considered include the role of anonymous refereeing, continuous rather than discrete frequency of publications, avoidance of time wasting, and seeking adventure. Here we give recommendations about the organization of journal articles, the roles of associate editors and referees, measuring the time frame for refereeing submitted articles in days and weeks rather than months and years, encouraging open access internet publishing, emphasizing the continuity of publishing online, academic publishing as a continuous dynamic process, and how to improve research after publication. Citations and functions thereof, such as the journal impact factor and h-index, are the benchmark for evaluating the importance and impact of academic journals and published articles. Even in the very top journals, a high proportion of published articles are never cited, not even by the authors themselves. Top journal publications do not guarantee that published articles will make significant contributions, or that they will ever be highly cited. The COVID-19 world should encourage academics worldwide not only to rethink academic teaching, but also to re-evaluate key issues associated with academic journal publishing in the future.