Coping with the editorial process: considerations for early–career biologists

Lidiar con el proceso editorial: consideraciones para biólogos en la fase inicial de su carrera En el presente enensayo se describen algunos aspectos de la interacción entre los autores, los revisores y los editores, con el objetivo de ayudar a los biólogos en la fase inicial de su carrera a navegar por el proceso de publicación. Múltiples autores y editores han señalado las dificultades actuales para encontrar revisores de calidad que revisen los manuscritos y, como consecuencia, es posible que esté aumentando la frecuencia de rechazos debido a revisiones sin conocimiento de causa y erróneos. Se sugieren varias estrategias para lidiar con: 1) el rechazo de manuscritos por los editores sin una revisión; 2) los editores que informan de los comentarios de los revisores, pero no formulan observaciones al respecto; 3) las revisiones que parecen desinformadas o idiosincrásicas; y 4) los comentarios que sugieren cambios de estilo en lugar de cambios sustantivos. La clave de toda buena estrategia para tratar con los editores y los revisores consiste en asegurarse de que la interacción sea cordial y mantenga un alto grado de objetividad respecto de las críticas. Además, las estrategias concretas que un autor utiliza para responder a los comentarios estilísticos y sustantivos de los editores dependerán de su experiencia y, tal vez, de su reputación en el sector. Las técnicas que aquí se sugieren deberían servir para estimular el debate sobre algunos problemas de nuestro sector y aumentar la probabilidad de que se acepte un buen manuscrito sometido para su publicación.In this essay I describe aspects of the interactions between authors, reviewers and editors with the goal of helping early–career biologists navigate the publication process. Multiple authors and editors have commented on the current difficulties of obtaining quality referees for manuscript reviews, and as a consequence, the frequencies of rejections based on uninformed or erroneous reviews, may be increasing. I suggest a variety of strategies for dealing with: 1) manuscript rejections by editors without review, 2) editors who report but do not comment on reviewer comments, 3) reviews that appear to be uninformed or idiosyncratic, and 4) comments suggesting stylistic revisions rather than substantive ones. The key to any successful strategy for dealing with editors and referees involves ensuring the interaction remains civil and retains a high level of objectivity regarding criticism. In addition, the specific strategies that an author uses to respond to stylistic and substantive editorial comments will depend on their experience and perhaps, reputation in the field. The techniques suggested herein should serve to stimulate discussion of some problems in our field and also increase the probability of acceptance of a worthy manuscript submitted for publication.Lidiar con el proceso editorial: consideraciones para biólogos en la fase inicial de su carrera En el presente enensayo se describen algunos aspectos de la interacción entre los autores, los revisores y los editores, con el objetivo de ayudar a los biólogos en la fase inicial de su carrera a navegar por el proceso de publicación. Múltiples autores y editores han señalado las dificultades actuales para encontrar revisores de calidad que revisen los manuscritos y, como consecuencia, es posible que esté aumentando la frecuencia de rechazos debido a revisiones sin conocimiento de causa y erróneos. Se sugieren varias estrategias para lidiar con: 1) el rechazo de manuscritos por los editores sin una revisión; 2) los editores que informan de los comentarios de los revisores, pero no formulan observaciones al respecto; 3) las revisiones que parecen desinformadas o idiosincrásicas; y 4) los comentarios que sugieren cambios de estilo en lugar de cambios sustantivos. La clave de toda buena estrategia para tratar con los editores y los revisores consiste en asegurarse de que la interacción sea cordial y mantenga un alto grado de objetividad respecto de las críticas. Además, las estrategias concretas que un autor utiliza para responder a los comentarios estilísticos y sustantivos de los editores dependerán de su experiencia y, tal vez, de su reputación en el sector. Las técnicas que aquí se sugieren deberían servir para estimular el debate sobre algunos problemas de nuestro sector y aumentar la probabilidad de que se acepte un buen manuscrito sometido para su publicación

Research Ethics Committees (RECs) and the Creaking Piers of Peer Review

[No abstract][No keywords]

Rankings games

Research rankings based on publications and citations today dominate governance of academia. Yet they have unintended side effects on individual scholars and academic institutions and can be counterproductive. They induce a substitution of the “taste for science” by a “taste for publication”. We suggest as alternatives careful selection and socialization of scholars, supplemented by periodic self-evaluations and awards. Neither should rankings be a basis for the distributions of funds within universities. Rather, qualified individual scholars should be supported by basic funds to be able to engage in new and unconventional research topics and methods.Academic governance, rankings, motivation, selection, socialization

Nobel and Novice: Author Prominence Affects Peer Review

Peer-review is a well-established cornerstone of the scientific process, yet it is not immune to status bias. Merton identified the problem as one in which prominent researchers get disproportionately great credit for their contribution while relatively unknown researchers get disproportionately little credit.1 We measure the extent of this effect in the peer-review process through a pre-registered field experiment. We invite more than 3,300 researchers to review a paper jointly written by a prominent author – a Nobel laureate – and by a relatively unknown author – an early-career research associate –, varying whether reviewers see the prominent author’s name, an anonymized version of the paper, or the less well-known author’s name. We find strong evidence for the status bias: while only 23 percent recommend “reject” when the prominent researcher is the only author shown, 48 percent do so when the paper is anonymized, and 65 percent do so when the little-known author is the only author shown. Our findings complement and extend earlier results on double-anonymized vs. singleanonymized review2,3,4,5,6,7 and strongly suggest that double-anonymization is a minimum requirement for an unbiased review process

Interim Report: Assessing the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication

The Center for Studies in Higher Education, with generous funding from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, is conducting research to understand the needs and desires of faculty for inprogress scholarly communication (i.e., forms of communication employed as research is being executed) as well as archival publication. In the interest of developing a deeper understanding of how and why scholars do what they do to advance their fields, as well as their careers, our approach focuses in fine-grained analyses of faculty values and behaviors throughout the scholarly communication lifecycle, including sharing, collaborating, publishing, and engaging with the public. Well into our second year, we have posted a draft interim report describing some of our early results and impressions ased on the responses of more than 150 interviewees in the fields of astrophysics, archaeology, biology, economics, history, music, and political science.Our work to date has confirmed the important impact of disciplinary culture and tradition on many scholarly communication habits. These traditions may override the perceived "opportunities" afforded by new technologies, including those falling into the Web 2.0 category. As we have listened to our diverse informants, as well as followed closely the prognostications about the likely future of scholarly communication, we note that it is absolutely imperative to be precise about terms. That includes being clear about what is meant by "open access" publishing (i.e., using preprint or postprint servers for scholarship published in prestigious outlets versus publishing in new, untested open access journals, or the more casual individual posting of working papers, blogs, and other non-peer-reviewed work). Our research suggests that enthusiasm for technology development and adoption should not be conflated with the hard reality of tenure and promotion requirements (including the needs and goals of final archival publication) in highly competitive professional environments

Accounting for Information: Case Studies in Editorial Decisions and Mortgage Markets

I measure information on distinct facets of quality from a corpus of reviews and characterize how decision-makers integrate this information present in text with that available through other channels. Specifically, I demonstrate that referee comments at a scholarly journal contain information on submissions' future citation impact above and beyond information available in referee scores. I measure this signal on future citation impact and show that it does not enter into editorial decision-making directly but rather through an interaction that amplifies the information content of referee scores: the more citations a low- or mediocre-scoring paper is likely to get the less likely it is to be published. Secondly, I describe referee comments that are highly predictive of greater citations. Papers that referees say have access to unique datasets, or are written on topics of relevance to ongoing debates or government applications receive greater citations on average. Third, I show the appearance of favoritism amongst editors who accept a higher share of papers that cite themselves is partly a reflection of an ability to draw and select for papers that receive more citations. Finally, I characterize budget constraints on publication space and referee capital and provide some guidance on what types of information editorial systems could capture to promote transparency in future analyses while protecting privacy of authors or referees. A second chapter introduces a theoretical framework for assessing the empirical discussion of asymmetric information amongst mortgage lenders and adds the idea of lender competition into this framework

Establishing the effectiveness of patient decision aids: key constructs and measurement instruments

Background: Establishing the effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDA) requires evidence that PtDAs improve the quality of the decision-making process and the quality of the choice made, or decision quality. The aim of this paper is to review the theoretical and empirical evidence for PtDA effectiveness and discuss emerging practical and research issues in the measurement of effectiveness. Methods: This updated overview incorporates: a) an examination of the instruments used to measure five key decision-making process constructs (i.e., recognize decision, feel informed about options and outcomes, feel clear about goals and preferences, discuss goals and preferences with health care provider, and be involved in decisions) and decision quality constructs (i.e., knowledge, realistic expectations, values-choice agreement) within the 86 trials in the Cochrane review; and b) a summary of the 2011 Cochrane Collaboration’s review of PtDAs for these key constructs. Data on the constructs and instruments used were extracted independently by two authors from the 86 trials and any disagreements were resolved by discussion, with adjudication by a third party where required. Results: The 86 studies provide considerable evidence that PtDAs improve the decision-making process and decision quality. A majority of the studies (76/86; 88%) measured at least one of the key decision-making process or decision quality constructs. Seventeen different measurement instruments were used to measure decision-making process constructs, but no single instrument covered all five constructs. The Decisional Conflict Scale was most commonly used (n = 47), followed by the Control Preference Scale (n = 9). Many studies reported one or more constructs of decision quality, including knowledge (n = 59), realistic expectation of risks and benefits (n = 21), and values-choice agreement (n = 13). There was considerable variability in how values-choice agreement was defined and determined. No study reported on all key decision-making process and decision quality constructs. Conclusions: Evidence of PtDA effectiveness in improving the quality of the decision-making process and decision quality is strong and growing. There is not, however, consensus or standardization of measurement for either the decision-making process or decision quality. Additional work is needed to develop and evaluate measurement instruments and further explore theoretical issues to advance future research on PtDA effectiveness

Product Reviews and Competition in Markets for Repeat Purchase Products

This paper examines how information provided by online reviews influences firms\u27 pricing strategy for repeat purchase products. It is commonly understood that online reviews can reduce consumer uncertainty about product characteristics and, therefore, have the potential to increase product demand and firm profits. However, when considering repeat purchase products, online reviews have an additional effect in that they can alter consumers\u27 propensity to switch among products, which can intensify price competition and lead to lower profits. The strength of these potentially offsetting effects depends on the informativeness of consumer reviews, which is a function of both objective review accuracy and the ability of consumers to obtain information from reviews when their idiosyncratic preferences over product characteristics might differ from the preferences of reviewers. The interplay of these competing effects results in an S-shaped relationship between the quality of reviews and firm profits. There exists an optimal level of consumer informedness from the firms\u27 perspective, and competing firms may have incentives to facilitate consumer reviews in some markets but not in others. Given firms\u27 strategic pricing, consumers may also be worse off as review informativeness increases

Information, Multifaceted Forest Ownership and Timber Supply

Existing decision support systems (DSS) do not account for forest owner heterogeneity, nor do they explicitly model the reaction of forest owners to policy. Hence, current DSS are suitable for response analysis, but much less useful for policy impact assessment or forecasting. The current study presents a theoretical model of harvesting behavior which provides the basis for a simulation model, Expected Value Asymmetries (EVA), useful for analyzing how timber supply and forest characteristics are affected when forest owners differ as to responsiveness to information, risk aversion, and patience as regards postponement of harvesting revenues. The simulation results clearly indicate that the model is well adapted for considering forest owner heterogeneity when assessing the impact of policy on the inter-temporal development of forest resources and timber market conditions. Finally, it is outlined how EVA could integrate forest owner specific harvesting behavior in an augmented Decision Support System (DSS), thus addressing the inability of DSS operational at pan-European level to model the interaction between policy and forest management decisions.JRC.H.3-Forest Resources and Climat

Opportunities and challenges for multicriteria assessment of food system sustainability

The focus of the Special Feature on “Multicriteria assessment of food system sustainability” is on the complex challenges of making and communicating overall assessments of food systems sustainability based on multiple and varied criteria. Four papers concern the choice and development of appropriate tools for making multicriteria sustainability assessments that handle built-in methodological conflicts and trade-offs between different assessment objectives. They underscore the value of linking diverse methods and tools, or nesting and stepping their deployment, to help build resilience and sustainability. They conclude that there is no one tool, one framework, or one indicator set that is appropriate for the different purposes and contexts of sustainability assessment. The process of creating the assessment framework also emerges as important: if the key stakeholders are not given a responsible and full role in the development of any assessment tool, it is less likely to be fit for their purpose and they are unlikely to take ownership or have confidence in it. Six other papers reflect on more fundamental considerations of how assessments are based in different scientific perspectives and on the role of values, motivation, and trust in relation to assessments in the development of more sustainable food systems. They recommend a radical break with the tradition of conducting multicriteria assessment from one hegemonic perspective to considering multiple perspectives. Collectively the contributions to this Special Feature identify three main challenges for improved multicriteria assessment of food system sustainability: (i) how to balance different types of knowledge to avoid that the most well-known, precise, or easiest to measure dimensions of sustainability gets the most weight; (ii) how to expose the values in assessment tools and choices to allow evaluation of how they relate to the ethical principles of sustainable food systems, to societal goals, and to the interests of different stakeholders; and (iii) how to enable communication in such a way that the assessments can effectively contribute to the development of more sustainable food systems by facilitating a mutual learning process between researchers and stakeholders. The wider question of how to get from assessment to transformation goes across all three challenges. We strongly recommend future research on the strengths, weaknesses, and complementarities of taking a values-based rather than a performance-based approach to promoting the resilience and sustainability of coupled ecological, economic, and social systems for ensuring food security and agroecosystem health in the coming millennium