Most popular ESE articles in January

Welcome to the first 2019 edition of our monthly review of the most read papers from European Science Editing (ESE).

All five papers in the top reads are from the 2018 volume, offering a view of the breadth of content published in ESE, from professional writing standards, translation and editing, to peer review, and current topics of importance like GDPR.

ESE is our official Association journal. All articles are fully peer reviewed, and issues are published four times per year, covering all aspects of scientific editing and publishing. The journal includes research articles, meeting reports, essays and viewpoints, book and website reviews, as well as highlighting events, resources and publications of interest to members. An informative and entertaining read, it helps editors keep up to date with major issues that are relevant to them.

EASE members receive online access and print copies of the journal, and all articles are made freely available 6 months after print publication.

With that said, here are the details of the top five papers most read on our website in the last month.

The development and uptake of the Joint Position Statement on the role of professional medical writers

Art Gertel, Christopher Winchester, Karen Woolley, Yvonne Yarker
44(4) November 2018. Viewpoint

Members of the European Association of Science Editors (EASE) and professional medical writers share a common goal – to publish research that readers trust and value. Medical writers can help EASE members as they strive to follow the EASE Golden Rules for Scholarly Journal Editors. Various guidelines are available regarding the role of professional medical writers, and adherence to these guidelines is best accomplished if the fundamental points are presented concisely and widely endorsed. This has been achieved with the release of the Joint Position Statement (JPS) on the Role of Professional Medical Writers, which has been endorsed by leading medical writing associations from around the world and other key stakeholders. The purpose of this article is to highlight to editors the development and uptake of the JPS, and how this guideline aligns with and supports the EASE Golden Rules.

Where can early career researchers learn how to peer review a scientific paper?
Mariana Pinto da Costa, José Oliveira, Jibril Abdulmalik
Issue: 44(1) February 2018. Original Article

Background: The ability to peer review a scientific paper is an important skill for researchers, but many early career researchers do not obtain relevant training. In this article, we aimed to identify and describe the different resources available for researchers to learn how to peer review.
Methods: We conducted a web-based search, looking for resources that teach how to peer review. In addition, we contacted authors who published with the terms “peer review” or “early career researchers”, enquiring about the resources they were acquainted with. We used a SWOT framework to analyse the resources with a direct focus on practical teaching of peer review and widespread availability.
Results: We found seven formats of resources available: practical structured peer review training courses; online guidelines; online webinars/videos; journal clubs of post-publication reviews; critical appraisal meetings of pre-publication reviews; editorial board experiences and support from supervisors/mentors. The authors contacted described the main purpose of each resource and how directly they focused on the purpose of teaching competencies to peer review. These resources also vary in their format: either online or face-to-face, independently or in a group. Only one resource was directly focused on practically teaching how to peer review and was readily available online at no cost.
Conclusions: The utilization of these resources may be the answer to the expressed needs of the academic community to see support for peer review in place, guiding early career researchers on how to peer review and addressing the current difficulties that editors face in finding reviewers.

Journals’ guidelines about title, abstract and keywords: an overview of Information Science and Communication Science areas
Mariângela Spotti Lopes Fujita, María-del-Carmen Agustín-Lacruz, Ana Lúcia Terra
44(4) November 2018. Original article

Objective: The purpose of this exploratory study was to observe and analyse guidelines for authors on writing their papers’ title, abstract and keywords.
Methods: The sample consisted of 64 journals indexed in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR): 32 (50%) Library & Information Science (LIS) journals and 32 (50%) Communication Science (CS) journals. A spreadsheet was used for data collection, containing 36 items grouped into four categories: identification data, guidelines for the title, the abstract, and the keywords of the scientific article. Then, in each category, the LIS journals were compared with CS journals, to verify how specific aspects of knowledge organisation and representation are reflected in editorial policies.
Results: Majority of CS journals (27, 84%) and less than a quarter of LIS journals (7, 22%) referred to a style guide on their website. Specific guidelines for the title were presented in 17 (53%) LIS journals and in 23 (72%) of CS journals, mainly concerning the word number. Twenty three (72%) LIS journals and 31 (97%) CS journals included guidelines for writing abstracts, focusing on word number and the structure of abstracts. Instructions for keywords were presented in 21 (66%) LIS journals and 28 (88%) CS journals, defining the number of keywords and the use of controlled vocabulary.
Conclusion: There is a tendency to standardise general indications and criteria about titles, abstracts and keywords. Guidelines on writing abstracts, titles and keywords have smaller presence in editorial policies of LIS journals, than of CS journals.

English for Russian scientific purposes: tips to improve word use
Dmitry Tychinin
Issue: 44(3) August 2018. Essays
Worldwide dissemination of Russian science is impeded by scientists’ poor written English. A first step to better English is to cleanse manuscripts of faulty words. The faults discussed in this article are the overuse of active(ly), create, due to, etc, preparation, and study, as well as the misuse of allow, approbate, register, and scientific work(s). The discussion ends with a brief message to the Russian author.

Journal editors and data: the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)Pippa Smart
Issue: 44(3) August 2018. Editorial

No Abstract