Can journals improve validity?

🖋
Journal guidelines improve, but do not fix the problem of antibody validation. (Easy compliance through identifying information improves, but actual experimental validation is slow.)
See our analysis in a publication in PeerJ:

Hoek, J. M., Hepkema, W. M., & Halffman, W. (2020). The effect of journal guidelines on the reporting of antibody validation. PeerJ, 8, e9300. doi:10.7717/peerj.9300

The Platform for Responsible Journals announced in Learned Publishing.

🖋

Editorial procedures, including peer review, could do with some more transparency and better documentation. Our article in Learned Publishing explains how our Platform for Responsible Journals could help.

Horbach, S. P. J. M., Hepkema, W. M., & Halffman, W. (2020). The Platform for Responsible Editorial Policies: An Initiative to foster Transparency in Scholarly Publishing. Learned Publishing. doi: 10.1002/leap.1312

Research integrity and power

🖋

New publication:

Horbach SPJM, Breit E, Halffman W, Mamelund S-E: On the Willingness to Report and the Consequences of Reporting Research Misconduct: The Role of Power Relations. Science and Engineering Ethics 2020.

http://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00202-8

Empirical investigation of how researchers claim their reporting of misconduct cases was affect by power relations, based on the survey conducted by the PRINTEGER project. Produced in cooperation with our Norwegian partners.

Paper out: how innovations in peer review remain niche.

Scholarly journal review procedures are full of innovation, yet also relatively conservative: with the exception of plagiarism scanners, fiercely advocated experiments in peer review remain limited to niches in the scientific publication system.

Our paper in Minerva:

Horbach, S. P. J. M., & Halffman, W. (2019). Journal Peer Review and Editorial Evaluation: Cautious Innovator or Sleepy Giant? Minerva. doi: 10.1007/s11024-019-09388-z