Figure 5 - uploaded by Ana Fresco-Santalla
Content may be subject to copyright.
Number of papers published in PLoS ONE since its launch (According to SCI Thomson Reuters Web of Science)

Number of papers published in PLoS ONE since its launch (According to SCI Thomson Reuters Web of Science)

Source publication
Article
Full-text available
New models of scientific publishing and new ways of practicing peer review have injected a recent dynamism into the scholarly communication system. In this article, we delineate the context of the traditional peer-review model, reflect on some of the first experiences with open peer review, and forecast some of the challenges that new models for pe...

Context in source publication

Context 1
... perhaps the most striking example is represented by PLoS ONE which, in the same year, 2009, achieved its inclusion in the Science Citation Index (SCI) and in the JCR (Roldán 2010) and, currently, ranks in the 7 th position within its academic field according to the IF (2012=3.730). The appellation megajournal is quite appropriate considering the number of papers published each year (see Figure 5). ...

Citations

... The scholarly publishing world has evolved from handwritten text and illustrations to the transformative printing press era (Eisenstein 1980), and finally the electronic periodicals of today that reside in online archives (Trealor 1996;Kling and McKim 1999). Other somewhat recent changes include the emergence of open access publishing (Laakso et al. 2011;Lewis 2012), greater transparency by publicly sharing the data and materials upon which a publication is based (O'Dea et al 2021), and enhanced peer-review processes intended to reduce bias and increase rigour (e.g., double blind referee models or, conversely, open review processes; Rowland 2002;Lee et al. 2013;Fresco-Santalla and Hernández-Pérez 2014). Through time, the scholarly publishing world has also become a highly profitable sector-this is increasingly regarded as problematic given that most labour is borne by the scientific community, which is overwhelmingly funded by public money (Buranyi 2017). ...
Article
Full-text available
For better or for worse, authorship is a currency in scholarly research and advancement. In scholarly writing, authorship is widely acknowledged as a means of conferring credit but is also tied to concepts such as responsibility and accountability. Authorship is one of the most divisive topics both at the level of the research team and more broadly in the academy and beyond. At present, authorship is often the primary way to assert and receive credit in many scholarly pursuits and domains. Debates rage, publicly but mostly privately, regarding authorship. Here we attempt to clarify key concepts related to authorship informed by our collective experiences and anchored in relevant contemporary literature. Rather than dwelling on the problems, we focus on proactive strategies for creating more just, equitable, and transparent avenues for minimizing conflict around authorship and where there is adequate recognition of the entire process of knowledge generation, synthesis, sharing, and application with partners within and beyond the academy. We frame our ideas around 10 strategies that collectively constitute a roadmap for avoiding and overcoming challenges associated with authorship decisions.
... In recent years, several journals have tried to improve peer review processes [55]. Their efforts have been focused on introducing openness and transparency to the models of peer review [56]. ...
... Their efforts have been focused on introducing openness and transparency to the models of peer review [56]. New strategies in peer review might help to address persistent statistical reporting and data presentation issues in the medical literature [55]. Software algorithms and scanners have been developed to assess internal consistency and validity of statistical tests in academic writing [57]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background: Data analysis methods have become an essential part of empirical research papers, especially in health sciences and medical research. It has previously been reported that a noteworthy percentage of articles have flaws in their statistical reporting. Reporting problems have been a long-term issue, and despite continued efforts to improve the situation, improvements have been far from satisfactory. One explanation is an inadequate assessment of statistical reporting during peer review. This communication proposes a short instrument to assess the quality of data analysis reporting in manuscripts and published papers. Method: A checklist-type instrument was developed by selecting and refining items from previous reports about the quality of statistical reporting in medical journals and from published guidelines for reporting and data presentation. Items were pretested and modified during pilot studies. A total of 160 original medical research articles that were published in 4 journals were evaluated to test the instrument. Interrater and intrarater agreements were examined by comparing quality scores assigned to 40 articles published in a psychiatric journal. Results: The data analysis reporting test consists of nine questions that assess the quality of health research from a reader’s perspective. The composed scale has a total score ranging from 0 to 10 and discriminated between journals and study designs. A high score suggested that an article had a good presentation of findings in tables and figures and that the description of analysis methods was helpful to readers. Interrater and intrarater agreements were high. Conclusion: An applicable checklist for quickly testing the statistical reporting quality of manuscripts and published research papers was developed. This instrument aims to improve the quality of empirical research in scientific fields where statistical methods play an important role.
... Typically, though, most peer review continues to be conducted under one of the anonymous approaches. Nevertheless, open peer review is beginning to grow in popularity in some disciplinary traditions (Fresco-Santalla & Hernández-Pérez, 2014;Morey et al, 2016), with supporters arguing that the open model offers a chance for increased transparency of author and reviewer interactions. As a result, this contributes to diminishing any suppressive practices which may have been concealed under an anonymous approach. ...
Method
Full-text available
This work is an output from the PLOTINA (Promoting gender balance and inclusion in research, innovation and training) Project, and in particular the Summer School on Peer Review, hosted by the University of Warwick in 2018. Like the related summer school, it represents a brief guided introduction to the concepts of peer reviewing, and discusses the associated practical processes, along with offering advice on dealing with some of the related challenges. It is intended for use by post-graduate researchers, doctoral candidates and early career researchers as they embark on their first peer-review assignments.
... Meanwhile, as noted before, the traditional features and role of peer-review within the science production chain was increasingly questioned, while the milestone phenomenon of web 2.0 slowly began transforming academic practices -as acknowledged even in cautious scholarly perspectives [36]. Useful studies have aimed at tracking this process and at casting light on a variety of 2.0 tools for the scholarly communities, as well as on patterns of their use [2,12,14,31,51,53]. ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper conveys the outcomes of what results to be the first, though initial, overview of commenting platforms and related 2.0 resources born within and for the astrophysical community (2004–2016). Experiences were added, mainly in the physics domain, for a total of twenty-two major items, including four epijournals – and four supplementary resources, thus casting some light onto an unexpected richness and consonance of endeavours. These experiences rest almost entirely on the contents of the database ArXiv, which adds to its merits that of potentially setting the grounds for web 2.0 resources, and research behaviours, to be explored. Most of the experiences retrieved are UK- and US-based, but the resulting picture is international, as various European countries, China and Australia have been actively involved. Final remarks about creation patterns and outcome of these resources are outlined. The results integrate the previous studies according to which the web 2.0 is presently of limited use for communication in astrophysics and vouch for a role of researchers in the shaping of their own professional communication tools that is greater than expected. Collaterally, some aspects of ArXiv’s recent pathway towards partial inclusion of web 2.0 features are touched upon. Further investigation is hoped for.
... Much has been written elsewhere on the strengths and weaknesses of peer review and considerable effort has recently been expended in improving the process (e.g. Hettyey et al., 2012;Fresco-Santalla and Hernández-Pérez, 2014). Whilst peer review is certainly an excellent filter to make sure that published results are readable, that glaring errors are relatively few, and is generally helpful in improving the final work, it can also be a relatively cursory process, and there is also no guarantee that the reviewer is entirely unbiased. ...
Article
Research science used to inform public policy decisions, herein defined as "Policy-Science", is rarely subjected to rigorous checking, testing and replication. Studies of biomedical and other sciences indicate that a considerable fraction of published peer-reviewed scientific literature, perhaps half, has significant flaws. To demonstrate the potential failings of the present approaches to scientific Quality Control (QC), we describe examples of science associated with perceived threats to the Great Barrier Reef (GBR), Australia. There appears a serious risk of efforts to improve the health of the GBR being directed inefficiently and/or away from the more serious threats. We suggest the need for a new organisation to undertake quality reviews and audits of important scientific results that underpin government spending decisions on the environment. Logically, such a body could also examine policy science in other key areas where governments rely heavily upon scientific results, such as education, health and criminology.
... At the same time, traditional peer-review's features and role in the science production chain were increasingly questioned ( [7], [8]; a review is in [9]), while the milestone phenomenon of web 2.0 slowly began transforming academic practices -as acknowledged even in cautious scholarly perspectives ( [10]). Useful studies have aimed at tracking the process and at casting light on a variety of 2.0 tools for the scholarly communities, as well as on patterns of their use ( [11], [12], [13], [14], [1], [15]). ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
This paper results to be the first, though absolutely initial, overview of commenting platforms and other web 2.0 resources which were born for and within the astrophysical research community, from 2004 to 2016. Additional experiences, chiefly in the physics domain, were added for a total of twenty-one tools, inclusive of four items in the specific area of epijournals – plus four supplementary resources which have been simply mentioned or anyway much more synthetically described due to their specific features –, thus casting some light onto an unexpected richness and consonance of endeavours. These experiences rest on the contents of the pioneering database ArXiv, which adds to its universally recognized merits that of setting the grounds for web 2.0 resources, and research behaviours, to be put in place. These resources were surveyed substantially through the method of empirical evidence, partly routed by the web resources examined and by some of the literature, and are accounted for in a time sequence for their essential features. Most of the experiences retrieved are UK- and US-based, but other countries have been involved, such as Italy, the Netherlands and China. Final remarks are sketched. The results integrate the previous studies according to which the web 2.0 is presently of limited use for scholarly communication within the astrophysical community. Collaterally, some aspects of ArXiv's recent pathway towards partial inclusion of web 2.0 features are touched upon. The centrality of the scholarly literature for web 2.0 interactivity in astrophysics and – more presumably – in some other branches of the physics domain emerges as a plausible hypothesis and as a promising research suggestion. Further investigation is not only needed, but also absolutely hoped for.
Article
Full-text available
Social sciences research (SSR) is an enterprise that is continuously evolving, but not without some debilitating issues that impede the realization of its full potential and usefulness. SSR, as a human initiative and activity, is discussed. The paper features the current methods and authorship issues that enhance the research outcomes’ validity. The argument advanced because while scholars continue to explore processes for research advancement, minimize where possible by putting an end to vices such as falsification, plagiarism, inappropriate methodology, and wrong data analysis. At the same time, while significant challenges are related to misconduct and dishonesty. The present paper expanded and updated the literature and proposed bringing the resources available to the social science researchers to enhance research outcomes. Overall, the paper recommends continuous strives for tools, and process enhancement and a demonstration of integrity by the stakeholders in SSR conduct to achieve field acceptance.
Article
Full-text available
Open peer review (OPR), where review reports and reviewers’ identities are published alongside the articles, represents one of the last aspects of the open science movement to be widely embraced, although its adoption has been growing since the turn of the century. This study provides the first comprehensive investigation of OPR adoption, its early adopters and the implementation approaches used. Current bibliographic databases do not systematically index OPR journals, nor do the OPR journals clearly state their policies on open identities and open reports. Using various methods, we identified 617 OPR journals that published at least one article with open identities or open reports as of 2019 and analyzed their wide-ranging implementations to derive emerging OPR practices. The findings suggest that: (1) there has been a steady growth in OPR adoption since 2001, when 38 journals initially adopted OPR, with more rapid growth since 2017; (2) OPR adoption is most prevalent in medical and scientific disciplines (79.9%); (3) five publishers are responsible for 81% of the identified OPR journals; (4) early adopter publishers have implemented OPR in different ways, resulting in different levels of transparency. Across the variations in OPR implementations, two important factors define the degree of transparency: open identities and open reports. Open identities may include reviewer names and affiliation as well as credentials; open reports may include timestamped review histories consisting of referee reports and author rebuttals or a letter from the editor integrating reviewers’ comments. When and where open reports can be accessed are also important factors indicating the OPR transparency level. Publishers of optional OPR journals should add metric data in their annual status reports.
Preprint
Full-text available
Blockchains provide decentralised, tamper-free registries of transactions among partners that may not trust each other. For the scientific community, blockchain smart contracts have been proposed to decentralise and make more transparent multiple aspects of scholarly communications. We show how an Ethereum-based suite of smart contracts running on top of a Web-enabled governance framework can facilitate decentralised computation of citations that is trustworthy. We implement and evaluate Smart Papers, and extend it with a model for decentralised citation counts. We show how our approach complements current models for decentralised publishing and informetrics calculation, and analyse cost and performance implications.