Post-publication peer review in biomedical journals: overcoming obstacles and disincentives to knowledge sharing

The importance of post-publication peer review (PPPR) as a type of knowledge exchange has been emphasized by several authorities in research publishing, yet biomedical journals do not always facilitate this type of publication. Here we report our experience publishing a commentary intended to offer constructive feedback on a previously published article. We found that publishing our comment required more time and effort than foreseen, because of obstacles encountered at some journals. Using our professional experience as authors’ editors and our knowledge of publication policies as a starting point, we reflect on the probable reasons behind these obstacles, and suggest ways in which journals could make PPPR easier. In addition, we argue that PPPR should be more explicitly valued and rewarded in biomedical disciplines, and suggest how these publications could be included in research evaluations. Eliminating obstacles and disincentives to PPPR is essential in light of the key roles of post-publication analysis and commentary in drawing attention to shortcomings in published articles that were overlooked during pre-publication peer review.

Invention through bricolage: epistemic engineering in scientific communities

It is widely recognised that knowledge accumulation is an important aspect of scientific communities. In this essay, drawing on a range of material from theoretical biology and behavioural science, I discuss a particular aspect of the intergenerational nature of human communities – “virtual collaboration” (Tomasello 1999) – and how it can lead to epistemic progress without any explicit intentional creativity (Henrich 2016). My aim in this paper is to make this work relevant to theorists working on the social structures of science so that these processes can be utilised and optimised in scientific communities

In Praise of Precipitatory Governance as a (Meta-)Principle of Responsible Innovation

-

Policy Considerations for Random Allocation of Research Funds

There are now several proposals for introducing random elements into the process of funding allocation for research, and some initial implementation of this policy by funding bodies. The proposals have been supported on efficiency grounds, with models, including social epistemology models, showing random allocation could increase the generation of significant truths in a community of scientists when compared to funding by peer review. The models in the literature are, however, fairly abstract (by necessity). This paper introduces some of the considerations that are required to build on the modelling work towards a fully-fledged policy proposal, including issues of cost and fairness

Supervision, mentorship and peer networks: how Estonian early career researchers get (or fail to get) support

The paper analyses issues related to supervision and support of early career researchers in Estonian academia. We use nine focus groups interviews conducted in 2015 with representatives of social sciences in order to identify early career researchers’ needs with respect to support, frustrations they may experience, and resources they may have for addressing them. Our crucial contribution is the identification of wider support networks of peers and colleagues that may compensate, partially or even fully, for failures of official supervision. On the basis of our analysis we argue that support for early career researchers should take into account the resources they already possess but also recognise the importance of wider academic culture, including funding and employment patterns, and the roles of supervisors and senior researchers in ensuring successful functioning of support networks. Through analysing the conditions for the development of early career researchers – producers of knowledge – our paper contributes to social epistemology understood as analysis of specific forms of social organisation of knowledge production

The Importance of Social Epistemology

-

Social Epistemology at Work: from Philosophical Theory to Policy Advice

Introductio

Managing the Future Imaginary: Does ‘Post-Normal’ Science need Public Relations?

Contemporary conditions of so-called ‘post-normal’ science characterised by fundamental uncertainty and high decision stakes have been met by the call for an ‘extended peer community’ to include a full range potential stakeholders in the assessment and evaluation of future research policy (Functowicz and Ravetz, 1993; 1994). Correspondingly, the term ‘Anticipatory Governance’ (AG) has entered currency within Science and Technology Studies (STS) circles, where the phrase refers sympathetically to the fields involvement with an array of novel practices routinely carried-out in the name of increasingly public-focused, conscientious management of emerging science and technology. Existing literature in this area has typically focused on perceived benefits of social-scientist driven AG as ‘Real Time Technology Assessment’ (RTTA), rather than address how such participation — in line with STS’s contemporary post-social, object-centred, anti-normative research character — relates to a lack of institutional protection for most STS practitioners today. I argue the activities of social science researchers enrolled in AG-styled programmes appears to closely resemble those of PR professionals, and as such, in today’s knowledge economy the field could have much to gain by turning to clarify and formalise the unique cognitive-base and normative horizons befitting of a closed occupational group. I suggest an occupational restructuring in line with the ‘professional project’ (Macdonald, 1995) could bring about increased autonomy for STS practitioners, as well as purposeful direction for future research

How accessibility influences citation counts: The case of citations to the full text articles available from ResearchGate

It is generally believed that the number of citations to an article can positively be correlated to its free online availability. In the present study, we investigated the possible impact of academic social networks on the number of citations. We chose the social web service “ResearchGate” as a case. This website acts both as a social network to connect researchers, and at the same time, as an open access repository to publish post-print version of the accepted manuscripts and final versions of open access articles. We collected the data of 1823 articles published by the authors from four different universities. By analyzing these data, we showed that although different levels of full text availability are observed for the four universities, there is always a significant positive correlation between full text availability and the citation count. Moreover, we showed that both post-print version and publisher’s version (i.e., final published version) of the archived manuscripts receive more citations than non-OA articles, and the difference in the citation counts of post-print manuscripts and publisher’s version articles is nonsignificant

The Social Science Centre, Lincoln: the theory and practice of a radical idea

The Social Science Centre, Lincoln (SSC), is a co-operative organising free higher education in the city of Lincoln, England. It was formed in 2011 by a group of academics and students in response to the massive rise in student fees, from £3000 to £9000, along with other other government policies that saw the increasing neo-liberalisation of English universities. In this essay we chart the history of the SSC and what it has been like to be a member of this co-operative; but we also want to express another aspect of the centre which we have not written about: the existence of the SSC as an intellectual idea and how the idea has spread and been developed through written publications by members of the centre and by research on the centre by other non-members: students, academics and journalists. At the end of the essay we will show the most up to date manifestation of the idea, the plans to create a co-operative university with degree awarding powers where those involved, students and academics, can make a living as part of an independent enterprise ran and owned by its members for their benefit and the benefit of their community and society.