Conference PaperPDF Available

Open science initiatives: The Postprint Pledge

  • June 2022
  • Conference: Open Scholarship in Applied Linguistics symposium
  • At: Cambridge, UK
Authors:
Ali H. Al-Hoorie at Royal Commission for Jubail and Yanbu
Ali H. Al-Hoorie
Phil Hiver at Florida State University
Phil Hiver
Brian Nosek
Brian Nosek
Brian Nosek
  • This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.
Download full-text PDF
Read full-text
Download citation

Abstract

VIDEO: https://youtu.be/Tslf_m5ZJCw - A talk at the the Open Scholarship in Applied Linguistics symposium. Cambridge, UK. Dedicated to the memory of Prof. Zoltan Dorney, who passed away on the day this campaign was launched. Sign up here: https://freeourknowledge.org/2022-06-06-postprint-pledge-for-linguists/ - See also: https://www.ali-alhoorie.com/postprint-pledge
Content uploaded by Ali H. Al-Hoorie
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ali H. Al-Hoorie on Jun 11, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
OPEN SCIENCE INITIATIVES:
THE POSTPRINT PLEDGE
Ali H. Al-Hoorie
Phil Hiver
Brian Nosek
10 June 2022
Open Scholarship in Applied Linguistics symposium
OUTLINE
•Cost of Knowledge initiative
•Background
•Evaluation
•Postprint Initiative
•What is a “postprint”
•Publisher policies
•Way forward
•Where to sign up
•Facebook group
COST OF KNOWLEDGE INITIATIVE
COST OF KNOWLEDGE INITIATIVE
•Founder: mathematician Timothy Gowers in 2012
•Purpose: Boycotting Elsevier
•Reasons:
•high subscription prices for individual journals
•bundling subscriptions to journals of different value and importance
•Elsevier's support for anti-open access acts
•Impact: more than 20K signatories to date
•Evaluation (Heyman et al., 2016):
•21%: unidentifiable signatories
• 19%: had not published at all
•23%: did published in Elsevier
•37%: adhered by not publishing in Elsevier
•“Indeed, relatively few researchers have signed the petition in recent
years, thus giving the impression that the boycott has run its course” (p. 2)
COST OF KNOWLEDGE INITIATIVE
•Why isn’t its impact stronger?
•Confrontational (boycotting)
•Could harm early career researchers more
•No sense of community, accountability (not field-specific)
•Targeting one publisher only (will this fix open science?)
•How about citing Elsevier?
•Citing Elsevier journals help raise their impact factors
•Not citing them can discourage other authors from publishing in them
•Increasing interest in open science & replication in applied linguistics
(Al-Hoorie & Hiver, in press; McManus, in press)
COST OF KNOWLEDGE INITIATIVE
THE POSTPRINT PLEDGE
THE POSTPRINT PLEDGE
•Preprint vs postprint
•Preprint:
•manuscript before peer review
•Not accepted yet
•1st draft submitted to the journal for review
•Postprint:
•Manuscript after peer review
•Has already been accepted
•Final draft submitted to the journal for copyediting
•(See also Soderberg, Errington, & Nosek, 2020, on preprint credibility)
Postprint Version of Record
•Is it legal to post “postprints” online?
•Depends on each publisher’s policies
•We compiled a list of 60 Applied Linguistics journals (from Web of Science)
•Examined their copyright policies from Sherpa Romeo (https://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/)
•Publishers that permit postprints:
•Cambridge, Elsevier, John Benjamins, SAGE, Emerald, De Gruyter, Akadémiai Kiadó
•Publisher that permit postprints on personal websites only (embargo on repositories):
•Springer, Oxford University Press, Taylor & Francis
•Publishers that do NOT permit on postprints before an embargo period:
•Wiley (usually 24-month embargo)
THE POSTPRINT PLEDGE
•What this Pledge is NOT asking you to do:
•Does not ask you to break any laws. Sharing postprints is within your rights
(see table next slide).
•Does not ask you to share “preprints” but to share “postprints”.
•Does not limit you to publishing in these journals.
•Does not require you do anything else (like boycotting certain publishers or
not reviewing for them).
THE POSTPRINT PLEDGE
Full table at https://freeourknowledge.org/2022-06-06-postprint-pledge-for-linguists/
•What this Pledge ASKS you to do:
•Share the postprint of your accepted manuscript online.
•Remember to include publication details on the first page (e.g., journal title,
etc.) so that others can cite your paper properly.
•You are free to go for a repository of your choice.
•Recommended repositories are:
•http://osf.io/preprints generalist repository
•http://psyarxiv.org/ more toward linguistics
•http://socarxiv.org/ more toward education
THE POSTPRINT PLEDGE
Announce your postprint with the hashtag #PostprintPledge
at the Facebook group Applied Linguistics Research Methods--Discussion
SIGN UP TODAY
Link: https://freeourknowledge.org/2022-06-06-postprint-pledge-for-linguists/
SCAN ME!
THANKS TO
Cooper Smout Mohammed Alshakhori Luke Plonsky
Normalize
Postprints!
REFERENCES
•Al-Hoorie, A. H., & Hiver, P. (in press). Open science in applied linguistics: An introduction
to metascience. In Plonsky, L. (Ed.), Open science in applied linguistics. John Benjamins.
•Heyman, T., Moors, P., & Storms, G. (2016). On the cost of knowledge: Evaluating the
boycott against Elsevier. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 1, 7.
https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2016.00007
•McManus, K. (in press). Are replication studies infrequent because of negative
attitudes? Insights from a survey of attitudes and practices in second language
research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition.
•Soderberg, C. K., Errington, T. M., & Nosek, B. A. (2020). Credibility of preprints: an
interdisciplinary survey of researchers. Royal Society open science, 7(10), 201520.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201520
THANK YOU
Ali H. Al-Hoorie
hoorie_ali@hotmail.com
Phil Hiver
phiver@fsu.edu
Brian Nosek
nosek@cos.io
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Are Replication Studies Infrequent Because of Negative Attitudes? Insights From a Survey of Attitudes and Practices in Second Language Research
Article
Full-text available
Replication is a research methodology designed to verify, consolidate, and generalize knowledge and understanding within empirical fields of study. In second language studies, however, reviews share widespread concern about the infrequency of replication. A common but speculative explanation for this situation is that replication studies are not valued because they lack originality and/or innovation. To better understand and respond to the infrequency of replication in our field, 354 researchers were surveyed about their attitudes toward replication and their practices conducting replication studies. Responses included worldwide participation from researchers with and without replication experience. Overall, replications were evaluated as relevant and valuable to the field. Claims that replication studies lack originality/innovation were not supported. However, dissemination issues were identified: half of published replication studies lacked explicit labeling and one quarter of completed replications were unpublished. Explicit labeling of replication studies and training in research methodology and dissemination can address this situation.
View
Credibility of preprints: an interdisciplinary survey of researchers
Article
Full-text available
  • Oct 2020
Preprints increase accessibility and can speed scholarly communication if researchers view them as credible enough to read and use. Preprint services do not provide the heuristic cues of a journal's reputation, selection, and peer-review processes that, regardless of their flaws, are often used as a guide for deciding what to read. We conducted a survey of 3759 researchers across a wide range of disciplines to determine the importance of different cues for assessing the credibility of individual preprints and preprint services. We found that cues related to information about open science content and independent verification of author claims were rated as highly important for judging preprint credibility, and peer views and author information were rated as less important. As of early 2020, very few preprint services display any of the most important cues. By adding such cues, services may be able to help researchers better assess the credibility of preprints, enabling scholars to more confidently use preprints, thereby accelerating scientific communication and discovery.
View