Monday, August 14, 2017

Member offer - Online Editors' course and resource

A newly-launched online resource and training course for Editors on How to publish better content is available from PSP Consulting.

EASE members can sign up at the introductory offer of £200. State that you are an EASE member when booking to obtain the discount.

The course provides an online resource for editors in all disciplines, covering topics such as improving submissions, detecting problem submissions, improving peer review and creating strategic plans. Course modules also include short guide booklets covering the topics, interactive quizzes, and case studies.

Find out more at at https://www.pspconsulting.org/training/online-editor-s-course/

EASE are pleased to officially endorse this course, which we feel offers excellent expert guidance on a wealth of valuable publishing skills and situations.

(The decision to endorse the course was made following strict EASE guidelines for endorsement: Pippa Smart at PSP is on EASE Council but was not involved in the endorsement)

Friday, August 11, 2017

ESE 43(3) - August 2017

“If research was a transport business, we would be appalled by these data.
Half the goods carried would be badly designed, half lost in
shipping, and half of the remainder broken by the time they
arrived.” - Chalmers and Glasziou
(quoted in Rewarding systematic approaches to reducing research waste, Hilton, ESE 43.3)

The August issue of European Science Editing is published, and if you are an EASE member, should be in your hands as we speak. Members and journal subscribers can access all current journal content online now. For non subscribers, all articles become open for free access after six months of publication.

This issue of the journal features an original article by Quan-Hoang Vuong et. al., looking at academic productivity in Vietnam; a viewpoint from Moira Hudson, giving an author’s editor’s perspective on formatting manuscripts for journal submission; an essay on the role of editors in reducing waste in research by Rhiannon Howe; and in keeping with that theme, an Editorial from John Hilton on the rewards of a systematic approach to waste reduction in research.

The Editorial is open access, for all readers to download in full now

http://europeanscienceediting.eu/articles/rewarding-systematic-approaches-to-reducing-research-waste/

 

HEIRRI announce training program pilot testers

HEIRRI have announced the selection of two institutions to pilot test their training program scholarships.

The Institute of Water and Energy Sciences (Pan African University, Algeria) and Centre for Studies in Science Policy (Jawaharlal Nehru University, India) will test two of the training programme courses being developed by the organisation, chosen from a list including Dialogical Reflection on Research and Innovation; Facilitating Reflection on Responsible Research and Innovation; and Considering Responsible Research and Innovation by Design.

The HEIRRI project will also provide funding to two more institutions to pilot their courses: Christian Albrechts Universität zu Kiel (Germany) and Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (Spain).

These institutions will actively participate in the development process of the materials, giving feedback on the materials and their use in their institutions.

More information can be found on the HEIRRI website here

14th EASE Conference - Venue announcement and last call for abstracts!


We are pleased to announce the venue for the 14th EASE Conference!

The event will be held at the Law School at the University of Bucharest, Romania, 8-10th June 2018. Registration will open in January 2018 and there are discounts for EASE members to attend

We also make a final call for abstract submissions to the conference. The event will focus on balancing innovation and tradition in science editing, and we invite papers, posters and talks to address this topic.

If you wish to submit a paper, please send your title and a 200-word abstract to Tea by 15th September.

Keep an eye on our main conference page for further announcements to the agenda, hotel details and events around the conference itself:

http://www.ease.org.uk/ease-events/14th-ease-conference-bucharest-2018/

Tuesday, August 01, 2017

B - Rules on COI

Zliobaité I, Fortelius M. Peer review: revise rules on conflicts of interest. Nature 2016;539(7628):168
(doi: 10.1038/539168a)

According to the authors, definitions of conflicts of interest (COI) in peer review need to be reassessed to reflect modern research practices. This could markedly increase the speed and quality of peer review. For example, many potential reviewers are disqualified under current rules on co-authorship. Co-authors typically have a sound understanding of each other's work and provide frank and constructive feedback. Using them as reviewers avoids settling for candidates who may be too far removed from the topic or not sufficiently senior in the field.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v539/n7628/full/539168a.html?foxtrotcallback=true

B - Journal peer review data

Lee CJ, Moher D. Promote scientific integrity via journal peer review data. Science 2017;357(6348):256-257
(doi: 10.1126/science.aan4141)

The peer review process both in journals and funding agencies could use more transparency, reporting and accountability. The authors identify incentives that could encourage journals to make their peer review data available to evaluate effectiveness toward achieving concrete measures of quality. This is a collective action problem requiring leadership and investment by publishers. It is time to apply the "trust, but verify" model to journal peer review. The authors suggest revising the Transparency and Openness (TOP) Guidelines, a set of reporting standards.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/357/6348/256

B - Publishing while female

Hengel E. Publishing while female. Gender differences in peer review scrutiny. Royal Economic Society’s annual conference. October 2016

The author analyzed more than 9,000 article abstracts published in the top four economics journals since 1950. She found that papers written by women are 1-6% more readable than those by men. The most straightforward reason for it is that referees apply higher standards to female-authored papers. Besides the paper found that women's writing gradually improves more over time but men's does not.
Between their first and third published articles, the average readability gap between male and female authors grows by 12%.
https://editorialexpress.com/cgi-bin/conference/download.cgi?db_name=RESConf2017&paper_id=725