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

 

Clarifying Opaque Peer Review

🖋

Research journals often fail to explain their precise editorial policies, including their terms for peer review. Do they use open or blind review? Will articles be subjected to statistics scanners? Will reviewers be selected from a pool, or the open scientific community? Check their webpages and try to find out what precisely will happen with your paper after submission and discover how hard it is.

Hence twenty-two editors, researchers, and publishing professionals have just launched the Declaration on Transparent Editorial policies for Academic Journals. Will you sign it too?