Mohamad Taha

I am very honoured to be nominated for the EASE Council. I’m passionate about open science and my work in the Directorate of Open Science at INRAE France adds experience to passion. I would be delighted to advise members on the open science practices including the transition to the OA model (Gold and Diamond). Being a member of the working group Transition and promotion of INRAE journals, I hope that it helps me in participation with the other EASE members to find solutions that help the community of scientific editors to adopt the open access model for their journals.

My multi-displinarity, adaptability, analytical skills, and my taste for technologies and scientific information are assets that I will count on to make EASE projects evolve. I might have less experience than the other nominees which, in my opinion, is an advantage that allows to bring a fresh look to EASE and its council.

If elected, I will use my extensive network in the scientific research and publishing sectors to promote EASE in France and to enhance its members’ enjoyment and benefits.

Career summary

Mohamad Taha is Managing Editor Agronomy for Sustainable Development (ASD) and in charge of promoting scientific heritage INRAE, France. He participates in groups of transversal projects of collective interest within the Directorate for Open Science INRAE France, particularly in the group Transition and promotion of INRAE journals, and the group Reflection on innovative editorial tools. He has worked in different domains from education to information science and publishing.

Please read Mohamad’s CV

Conflict of Interest declaration

Challenges facing editing and publishing and how EASE could help.

Mohamad took part in the recent webinar about the challenges facing editing and publishing. He prepared the following responses to the various questions posed to the Council nominees by the chair, Pippa Smart.

Short introduction

I am Mohamad Taha, Managing Editor of the journal Agronomy for Sustainable Development (ASD). I also work with one group on the transfer of INRAE journals to full open access and with another group on the valorization of INRAE’s scientific heritage (produced and/or acquired). You can see one of our realizations on: https://agate.inrae.fr

 

My vision for EASE and the challenges for editors and scholarly publishing, and how EASE can help address these challenges:

1. Vision for EASE: My vision for EASE should be to foster a culture of high-quality scientific publishing and editing in Europe. This could be achieved by promoting ethical, transparent, and rigorous standards for scientific publishing and editing, and by creating a community of editors and publishers who share these values.
2. Challenges for editors and scholarly publishing: There are several challenges facing editors and scholarly publishing today, including:

• The proliferation of predatory publishers and journals that engage in unethical publishing practices.

• The increasing pressure to publish in high-impact journals, which can lead to a focus on quantity over quality. Not to mention dominating commercial scientific publishers.
• The need to ensure that research is conducted ethically and with integrity, and that data are properly analyzed and reported.
• The need to ensure that research is communicated effectively to the wider scientific community and the general public.

1. How EASE can help: EASE can play an important role in addressing these challenges by:

• Promoting and supporting ethical publishing practices and providing guidance to editors and publishers on how to avoid predatory journals.
• Advocating for a more balanced approach to publishing that values quality over quantity without forgetting promoting open access publishing.
• Developing and promoting guidelines for research integrity and good scientific practice.
• And last but not least, providing training and support for editors and publishers to improve the quality of scientific communication and ensure that research is effectively communicated to the wider community.

Summary

EASE should promote high-quality scientific publishing and editing in Europe. This can be achieved by addressing the challenges facing editors and scholarly publishing today, such as predatory publishing, the focus on high-impact journals, and the need to ensure ethical and transparent research practices. EASE can help by promoting ethical publishing practices, advocating for a more balanced approach to publishing, developing guidelines for research integrity, and providing training and support for editors and publishers.

1. What do you think is the biggest challenge for editors and what can EASE do to help?

In my opinion, one of the biggest challenges facing editors today is the increasing pressure to publish in high-impact journals. This pressure can lead to a focus on quantity over quality, and can result in a lack of diversity in the research that is published. Additionally, there are many predatory journals and publishers that are taking advantage of this pressure and engaging in unethical publishing practices, which can make it difficult for editors to identify legitimate and high-quality journals.

To address this challenge, EASE can play a critical role in promoting ethical publishing practices and advocating for a more balanced approach to publishing. This can include developing and promoting guidelines for editors and publishers on how to avoid predatory journals and ensuring that research is published in legitimate and high-quality journals. EASE can also provide training and support to editors to help them make informed decisions about where to publish research, and to ensure that research is evaluated based on its quality and impact, rather than on the journal in which it is published.

Additionally, EASE can help editors by promoting diversity and inclusivity in scientific publishing. This can include advocating for open access publishing, which can increase the visibility and accessibility of research, and supporting initiatives that promote diversity in the research community. EASE can also provide training and support to editors to help them ensure that research is evaluated fairly and objectively, regardless of the background or affiliations of the researchers.

Overall, by promoting ethical publishing practices, advocating for a more balanced approach to publishing, and promoting diversity and inclusivity in scientific publishing, EASE can help editors navigate the challenges they face and ensure that high-quality research is published in legitimate and high-quality journals.

 

2. In your opinion, what is the main role of EASE?

In my opinion, the main role of EASE is to promote excellence in scientific editing and publishing in Europe by advocating for ethical and transparent publishing practices, promoting diversity and inclusivity, promoting research integrity and good scientific practice, and providing training and support to editors and publishers.

EASE can play an important role in bringing together editors, publishers, and other stakeholders in scientific publishing to share best practices, discuss challenges, and work together to promote excellence in scientific editing and publishing. Through its conferences, workshops, and other events, EASE provides a forum for members to exchange ideas and stay up-to-date on the latest developments in scientific editing and publishing.

EASE also plays a critical role in promoting research integrity and good scientific practice. By developing and promoting guidelines for editors and publishers on ethical publishing practices and research integrity.

Finally, EASE serves as a resource for editors and publishers, providing training and support to help them improve their skills and knowledge in scientific editing and publishing. Through its journal, The European Science Editing, EASE also provides a platform for members to share their knowledge and expertise with the wider scientific community.

 

3. What do you think EASE should be focusing on in the next few years?

There are several important areas that EASE should be focusing on in the next few years to promote excellence in scientific editing and publishing in Europe. Here are 5 suggestions:

• Addressing predatory publishing: EASE should continue to focus on addressing predatory publishing practices by providing guidance to editors on how to identify and avoid predatory journals.
• Promoting diversity and inclusivity: EASE must focus on promoting diversity and inclusivity in scientific publishing by advocating for open access publishing and supporting initiatives that promote diversity in the research community. This can help to ensure that high-quality research is accessible to a wider audience and that a diverse range of voices are represented in scientific publishing.
• Supporting research integrity: EASE should continue to focus on promoting research integrity and good scientific practice by developing and promoting guidelines on ethical publishing practices and research integrity. This can help to ensure that research is conducted ethically, with integrity, and that data are properly analyzed and reported.
• Providing training and support: EASE must focus on providing training and support to editors to help them improve their skills and knowledge in scientific editing and publishing. This can include developing training programs, workshops, and other educational resources to help editors stay up-to-date on the latest developments in scientific publishing.
• Collaboration with other organizations: EASE have to focus on collaborating with other organizations in scientific publishing to share best practices and work together to promote excellence in scientific editing and publishing. This can include partnering with other associations, societies, and publishers to develop joint initiatives and projects.

Overall, by focusing on these areas, EASE can help to ensure that scientific editing and publishing in Europe is conducted with the highest standards of quality, transparency, and integrity.

 

4. Are there any new activities you think EASE should be undertaking?

I suggest 5 activities that EASE could consider undertaking based on current trends and needs in the field of science editing and publishing:

• Supporting Open Science: EASE could further promote the principles of open science by providing resources and guidance on open access, open data, and open peer review, and advocating for policy changes that support these principles.
• Advocating for Transparency in Research: EASE could support the adoption of transparent research practices, such as pre-registration, data sharing, and replication, by encouraging their use in scientific publishing and promoting awareness of their benefits.
• Engaging with Emerging Technologies: EASE could explore and engage with emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, blockchain, and machine learning to better understand their potential applications in science editing and publishing and to develop standards and guidelines for their use.
• Providing more Training and education programs: EASE could provide training and education programs for editors, reviewers, and authors to enhance their skills and knowledge in science editing, publishing, and peer review.
• Addressing Misinformation and Misconduct in science: EASE could address this issue by providing guidance on best practices for fact-checking and plagiarism detection and encouraging the adoption of codes of conduct and ethical guidelines in scientific communication.

 

5. What are the questionable research practices that can undermine the credibility of scientific findings?

There are several questionable research practices that can undermine the credibility of scientific findings, including:

• P-hacking: as I previously mentioned, p-hacking involves manipulating statistical analyses in order to obtain a statistically significant result, even if the result is not meaningful or robust.
• HARKing: HARKing (Hypothesizing After Results are Known) involves presenting post-hoc hypotheses as if they were predicted before the study was conducted. This can lead to false positive findings and can undermine the credibility of the research.
• Publication bias: Publication bias occurs when the decision to publish research findings is based on the significance of the results rather than the quality of the research. This can lead to a skewed literature base, as negative or null results may be less likely to be published.
• Data fabrication and falsification: Data fabrication involves making up data that was never collected, while data falsification involves changing or manipulating data to obtain a desired result. These practices are clear violations of research integrity and can lead to severe consequences, including retraction of published articles and damage to the researcher’s reputation.
• Conflicts of interest: Conflicts of interest can arise when researchers have financial or personal interests that may influence their research findings. This can include funding from industry or personal relationships with study participants. Conflicts of interest can bias research findings and undermine the credibility of the research.
• Inadequate sample sizes: Inadequate sample sizes can lead to false positive findings, as well as decreased generalizability and reproducibility of research findings.
• These and other questionable research practices can undermine the credibility and reliability of scientific research, which is why it is important to promote research integrity and transparency in all aspects of scientific research.

 

Additional information

Pre-registration refers to the practice of registering a research study design, hypotheses, and analysis plans before collecting data, in order to increase the transparency, accountability, and reproducibility of scientific research. Pre-registration helps to reduce the potential for research bias such as p-hacking, and other questionable research practices that can undermine the credibility of scientific findings.

There are different types of pre-registration, including:

1. Registered Reports: Registered Reports are a type of peer-reviewed article in which the study design and analysis plan are reviewed and accepted by a journal before data collection. This helps to ensure that the research question is important and the study is well-designed and adequately powered to answer it.
2. Preregistration of Analysis Plans: In this approach, researchers register their analysis plan before collecting data, which can help to prevent p-hacking or other questionable research practices.
3. Study Registration: Researchers can register their study design, hypotheses, and analysis plans in a public registry before collecting data. This provides a time-stamped record of the study, which can help to increase transparency and accountability.

Pre-registration is increasingly being adopted by scientific journals and funding agencies as a best practice to improve the quality and integrity of scientific research.

P-hacking (also known as data dredging or data fishing) is a questionable research practice that involves manipulating statistical analyses in order to obtain a statistically significant result, even if the result is not meaningful or robust. P-hacking is a form of research bias that can lead to false positive findings and can undermine the credibility and reproducibility of scientific research.

P-hacking can take many forms, such as:

1. Data manipulation: Researchers may selectively exclude or include data points or variables to obtain a significant result.
2. Analysis manipulation: Researchers may conduct multiple statistical tests or change the analysis methods until they obtain a significant result.
3. Sample size manipulation: Researchers may collect more data until they obtain a significant result, or stop data collection before reaching a predetermined sample size.

P-hacking is a common problem in scientific research, particularly in fields where statistical significance is emphasized, such as biomedical research and psychology. To address this issue, researchers and journals are increasingly adopting pre-registration and other transparency measures to ensure that research findings are robust and reliable.

Mohamad Taha

21 March 2023