Why We Can't Trust Academic Journals to Tell the Scientific Truth
Academic journals don’t select the research they publish on scientific rigour alone. So why aren’t academics taking to the streets about this?
Academic journals don’t select the research they publish on scientific rigour alone. So why aren’t academics taking to the streets about this?
The peer-review system, despite its flaws, is a central component of the publication process. However, relatively little guidance is provided for early-career scientists on 2 important aspects of peer review:
New program aims to recruit and retain early-career scientists who are from gender, racial, ethnic, and other groups underrepresented in the life sciences, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds.
The publicly funded agency responsible for policing scientific fraud is keeping secret the details surrounding these researchers. Their names, where they worked, and what they did wrong is protected under privacy laws.
The president’s proposed cuts to research funding would cripple American innovation. We should be spending more on R&D, not less.
There are more academic publishers out there than ever before. In 2014 there was an estimated 28,100 active scientific journals, but while the large majority of these journals are highly respected, there has also been a sharp rise in the number of predatory journals.
Contributing to science is no easy endeavor.
There are increased discussions around open access and open science in journals, but what do these terms really mean? Here we try to dissect its meaning for early career scientists and professionals.
It is a great challenge to get Early Career Researchers (ECRs) involved in peer review and to get them the necessary training to be confident reviewers.
Academics who offer their books free online reach many more readers and are cited slightly more often. Surprisingly enough, it has little effect on the sale of paper editions, positive or negative.
The training course adds to ongoing efforts to promote greater diversity in scholarly review.
Coffee breaks are a ritualistic part of work life in Europe, a practice this opinion piece suggests would benefit scientists in North America.
Heavy workloads, bullying and a lack of support add to falling job satisfaction for postdocs, junior faculty members and other young scientists.
As the scientific community adapts to new working conditions in response to the growing pandemic, early-career researchers recommend actions to help lessen the unintended consequences of canceled conferences.
Researchers should learn to travel better to mitigate their climate impacts. Institutions can help by facilitating and rewarding sustainable travel behaviour, rather than fuelling the pressure to attend conferences, say Olivier Hamant, Timothy Saunders and Virgile Viasnoff.
Although researchers do leave newer member states to pursue their career goals, especially in the early stages of their career, they almost always never want to return to their home countries.
Using Qualitative Comparative Analysis, we show how different combinations of science, gender equality, and social policies interact to constitute five distinct national pathways for gender-fair early career progression.
Women researchers are underrepresented in almost all research fields. There are disciplinary differences in the phase in which they tend to quit their academic career: in the natural and technical sciences (STEM), it is in the postdoctoral phase, whereas in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) it is during the doctoral phase.
Universities and colleges should stop using the quantity of published articles as a measure of academic performance. Researchers and respectable journals should not cite articles from predatory journals, and academic library databases should exclude metadata for such publications.
While offering reviewers any form of guidance is better than none, being thorough and creating a reviewer checklist is by far the best way to help reviewers know the expectations of your journal.