Chinese Scholarly Publishing.

Scientific publishing in China is differs from international scientific publishing: journal licenses are restricted, administrative control is complex and cumbersome, but the system is far less oligopolistic. Our overview is out in Learned Publishing.
Wang, J., Halffman, W., & Zwart, H. (2020). The Chinese scientific publication system: Specific features, specific challenges. Learned Publishing, n/a(n/a). doi: 10.1002/leap.1326

Positief zijn

๐Ÿ–‹

Ik vind het best moeilijk om “positief te zijn” als ik het over het wetenschappelijke publicatiesysteem heb. Want de verhalen over wat er zoal mis gaat zijn wel erg bizar af en toe. Mijn column in Vox.

Can journals improve validity?

๐Ÿ–‹
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.

๐Ÿ–‹

Editorial procedures, including peer review, could do with some more transparency and better documentation. Our article inย Learned Publishingย 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

What are peer review innovations for?

๐Ÿ–‹

Why are journals innovating peer review? Innovations are proposed with a wide variety of arguments, ranging from fairness to objectivity.

An overview for a general science audience in this guest editorial:

Halffman, W., & Horbach, S. P. J. M. (2020). What are innovations in peer review and editorial assessment for? Genome Biology, 21(1), 87. doi:10.1186/s13059-020-02004-4

Research integrity and power

๐Ÿ–‹

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 experimentsย 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