Here is another survey for our members to participate in this week.
SpringerNature have commissioned a survey into science-related careers, titled the 2018 International Salary and Job Satisfaction Survey, implemented by Shift Learning.
They survey doesn’t explicitly say that science-based careers are the intended demographic, but the questions relate to this specific setting, asking about primary position, subject area, education level, institutional setting, duration of positions, research undertakings, mental health, salaries and more.
It is relatively quick to complete, and should take around 5 minutes of your time, and you can enter into a prize draw for Amazon vouchers worth $150.
Here is the link to the survey: https://www.snapsurveys.com/wh/s.asp?k=152907569868
– Friday 22nd June, 2018 –
Science communication facilitation platform Kudos are developing a new product – Kudos for Research Groups and have a survey they would like participants for.
Kudos hope that this platform will enable them to support a much wider range of research outputs including conference papers, presentations, posters and research objects including data images and code. All types of ‘additional’ research output which EASE supports and believe should make greater contributions to the body of acknowledged literature. It seems Kudos share this belief.
The aim is to provide a cohesive central point through which research groups, institutes, labs, departments and units of assessment can collaborate on joint dissemination plans for their projects and track their progress.
To help with these aims, Kudos have developed a survey to better understand the needs of the research community, shape the platform in a way which will be of most use, and invite people to be involved in beta testing.
The survey is open until 5pm bst, Friday 22nd June. Your input will be welcomed.
Contribute here: www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/Kudos_Dissemination_Survey
– Monday 19th June, 2018 –
Are you involved in observational research?
Melissa Sharp of University of Split and Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité is conducting a survey to better understand the use of and attitudes towards the STrenghtening the Reporting of OBservational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement.
You do not need to know anything about the STROBE Statement to participate, but you should currently work on or within the past 10 years have worked on manuscripts reporting the results of observational studies (e.g., cohort, case-control, cross-sectional).
Share your thoughts on the STROBE reporting guideline here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/obsstudies
Watch Shirin Heidari, founding chair of EASE Gender Policy Committee, present a TEDx talk discussing how scientific research has turned a blind eye on gender blind research.
Shirin provides some fascinating examples about the harmful implications of this gender bias, shares some insights into medical research, and offers a path to change the paradigm towards unbiased research that can apply to all genders.
– Saturday 12th May, 2018 –
Interesting new development over at Clarivate, as they announce their acquisition of article discovery app Kopernio.
A free to use browser plug-in similar to UnPaywall, Kopernio searches your library (if you log on with institutional credentials), PubMed, Google Scholar, pre-print servers and other repositories to look for the full text. It then saves it to your online ‘locker’, or you can download to your desktop.
Adding this personal library app to the Clarivate roster, alongside recently acquired Publons for peer review activity, as well as their existing Web of Science and ScholarOne Manuscripts features is an interesting step towards developing what could be a fascinating and highly functional integrated academic activity platform (and all that associated data that goes with it!).
Unsurprisingly, this news is making waves across industry and academia, including a thoughtful post and interview with Kopernio founders Jan Reichelt and Ben Kaube on Scholarly Kitchen, and Times Higher Education running the somewhat contentious headline “’Legal Sci-Hub’ journal access tool set for major expansion”, amongst many others.
Definitely worth putting in your browser.
– Wednesday 11th April, 2018 –
A peer review research programme (IMPER), financed by The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) aims investigate the effectiveness of peer review as one of science’s self-regulatory mechanisms, particularly its’ ability to recognise erroneous or fraudulent research.
In order to do so, the project team, led by Dr. Willem Halffman and Serge Horbach at Radboud University Nijmegen, are calling for journal editors and administrators to provide information on the models and processes they use to conduct their peer review.
On behalf of the project team, we post the link to their survey which consists of a few simple questions about the peer review process in your journal (e.g. whether you adhere to double-blind, single-blind or open review, what criteria for quality is considered). The survey will be live until 16th March, and is available at this link:
We hope our members in suitable editorial positions will be able to help contribute to this research. Filling out the questionnaire will not take much more than five minutes. If you are involved with multiple journals, the team request that you complete the survey for each journal separately.
In return, the team offer to share the results of our project with you. Should you wish to receive details, you may indicate this in the final question of the survey.
– Friday 2nd March, 2018 –
Cochrane is now calling for nominations for the 2018 prize.
The Lancet series on adding value and reducing waste in research has documented that much research is wasted because its outcomes cannot be used. The waste occurs during 5 stages of research production: question selection, study design, research conduct, publication, and reporting. This type of research waste has been estimated at a global loss of around $170 billion per year. Much of this waste appears to be avoidable or remediable, but there is little recognition of the need to develop and implement the needed remedies.
The Cochrane-REWARD prize is intended to stimulate and promote research to address the issue of research waste, highlighting both underused “remedies” and the need to invest in research to identify problems and solutions to them.
The prize is open to any person or organization that has tested and implemented strategies to reduce waste in one of the five stages of research production in the area of health (defined as the range of behavioural, biological, socio-economic and environmental factors that influence the health status of individuals or populations).
All nominations will be assessed using the following criteria:
Nominations will be assessed by a panel of 10 members, who will select two entries to win a funding award, paid over the next two years.
First prize will be awarded £3000 (£1500 per year); 2nd prize will be awarded funding of £2000 (£1000 per year).
Deadline for nominations is May 15th, 2018. The winners will be announced at the Cochrane Colloquium, Edinburgh, 16-18 September, 2018.
Interested parties should read through the full details and apply using the entry form here.
– Monday 29th January, 2018 –
Two of our members have written a response to Moher et al.’s ‘Core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals: consensus statement’, published in BMC Medicine in 2017, from their perspective as authors’ editors.
Valerie Matarese and Karen Shashok’s correspondence article in F1000Research offers some “insights into the types of competencies researchers from diverse geographical, cultural and linguistic backgrounds would value in journal editors.”
The paper discusses several issues, including the definition of journal editor, competencies which were considered then removed during the Delphi process, inappropriate text re-use, and suggests the role of journal editors could encompass some author-editing skills, to give more nuanced feedback on writing and language beyond “blanket “acceptable/unacceptable” assessments”.
Valerie and Karen’s paper is published now, is open for peer review, and can be found at: https://f1000research.com/articles/7-109/v1
– Friday 26th January, 2018 –
An article published in FEMS Microbiology Letters reviews the use of Twitter as a tool for scientists to “increase their personal brand, improve their skills, enhance their visibility, share and communicate science to society, promote scientific culture, and even as a tool for teaching and learning”
The authors assess their experiences of using Twitter as part of a Massive Online Open Course (MOOC) in Spain and Latin America, present some of the measurable benefits they discovered through its use, and propose an extension to this strategy with a pan-European Microbiology MOOC in the near future.
The article is behind an OUP paywall, but anyone with access to the journal may find much of interest in this article.
Ignacio López-Goñi, Manuel Sánchez-Angulo; Social networks as a tool for science communication and public engagement: focus on Twitter, FEMS Microbiology Letters, , fnx246, https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fnx246
Following a review of existing reporting standards, the American Psychological Association has published a paper which sets out revisions to existing standards, and adding new sets which address current positions and knowledge.
Changes to existing standards have been made to the meta-analysis section, and in the hypotheses, analyses, and conclusions, dividing them into 3 groupings (primary, secondary, and exploratory). Some new modules found in this version include standards for observational studies, clinical trials, longitudinal studies, and replication studies.
We recommend that all journal publishers, editors, authors and reviewers in the psychological sciences field read these, incorporate them as best practice guidelines in assessing papers for publication, and for all researchers to reference when designing and reporting their work.
The paper can be accessed for free here: http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-00750-002
Appelbaum, M., Cooper, H., Kline, R. B., Mayo-Wilson, E., Nezu, A. M., & Rao, S. M. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. American Psychologist, 73(1), 3-25.
– Monday 22nd January, 2018 –