What is Open Science: even a 12-year old child can participate in creation of a scientific article – YouTube

“Our first introduction video is dedicated to the problem of peer review process in scientific communication. In the view of recent scandals with articles retraction from prestigious journals such as hydroxychloroquine study from the Lancet journal, we must overview the need of peer review in the current scholarly publishing system. What is a peer review and why does it prevent our scientific progress and citizens participation in it? What is Open science and Open peer review? And why do we need to transform our science to be open?

To answer these questions, we invited to the interview Matheus Pereira Lobo, Brazilian physicist and mathematician, professor at the Federal University of Tocantins, co-editor of the Open Journal of Mathematics and Physics. He shares his thoughts about peer review process and tells about the alternative, his Open Journal of Mathematics and Physics which welcomes collaboration not only with his colleagues but with the broad public.”

EGU journals: open access publishing, public peer review and the new EGUsphere

“The EGU, through Copernicus Publications, publishes 19 peer-reviewed, open access journals that cover a wide range of topics within the Earth, planetary and space sciences. Not only are these EGU journals open access, but they also provide an open discussion forum that allows an open review, open discussion and transparent evaluation.

This webinar explains the interactive public peer review system, the role of the EGU Publication Committee, how researchers can effectively publish in an EGU Journal, and briefly describes the new EGUsphere….”

OASPA Webinar: Scholarly Communication & COVID-19: Closing the Loop for Effective Peer Review – key takeaways and answers to attendee questions – OASPA

“Following on from the recent webinar entitled Scholarly Communication & COVID-19: Closing the Loop for Effective Peer Review, we asked our speakers to summarise their talks by offering a few key takeaways, which you can find below.

We also asked speakers to respond to the many questions that were posed by attendees via the webinar chat.  You can find those questions and answers directly under the takeaways. This may be useful for those who missed it or wish to share with colleagues.

You can also access the speakers’ slides….”

Rapid publications risk the integrity of science in the era of COVID-19 | BMC Medicine | Full Text

Abstract:  Background

Preprint manuscripts, rapid publications and opinion pieces have been essential in permitting the lay press and public health authorities to preview data relating to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including the range of clinical manifestations and the basic epidemiology early on in the pandemic. However, the rapid dissemination of information has highlighted some issues with communication of scientific results and opinions in this time of heightened sensitivity and global concern.

Main text

Rapid publication of COVID-19 literature through expedited review, preprint publications and opinion pieces are important resources for the medical scientific community. Yet the risks of unverified information loom large in times when the healthcare community is desperate for information. Information that has not been properly vetted, or opinion pieces without solid evidence, may be used to influence public health policy decisions. We discuss three examples of unverified information and the consequences in this time of high anxiety surrounding COVID-19.

Conclusions

In an era when information can be widely and swiftly disseminated, it is important to ensure that the scientific community is not an inadvertent source of misinformation. This will require a multimodal approach, with buy-in from editors, publishers, preprint servers, authors and journalists. The landscape of medical publications has changed, and a collaborative approach is required to maintain a high standard of scientific communications.

Rapid publications risk the integrity of science in the era of COVID-19 | BMC Medicine | Full Text

Abstract:  Background

Preprint manuscripts, rapid publications and opinion pieces have been essential in permitting the lay press and public health authorities to preview data relating to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including the range of clinical manifestations and the basic epidemiology early on in the pandemic. However, the rapid dissemination of information has highlighted some issues with communication of scientific results and opinions in this time of heightened sensitivity and global concern.

Main text

Rapid publication of COVID-19 literature through expedited review, preprint publications and opinion pieces are important resources for the medical scientific community. Yet the risks of unverified information loom large in times when the healthcare community is desperate for information. Information that has not been properly vetted, or opinion pieces without solid evidence, may be used to influence public health policy decisions. We discuss three examples of unverified information and the consequences in this time of high anxiety surrounding COVID-19.

Conclusions

In an era when information can be widely and swiftly disseminated, it is important to ensure that the scientific community is not an inadvertent source of misinformation. This will require a multimodal approach, with buy-in from editors, publishers, preprint servers, authors and journalists. The landscape of medical publications has changed, and a collaborative approach is required to maintain a high standard of scientific communications.

More Springer Nature authors to benefit from support for early sharing with further roll out of In Review | Corporate Affairs Homepage | Springer Nature

“In Review, the innovative service which integrates early sharing and increased transparency in peer review with the journal submission and peer review process, is being made available for the first time to authors submitting primary research to Nature Research titles.  From today authors submitting to two Nature Research titles,  Nature Communications and Nature Biomedical Engineering, will be able to utilise In Review to realise the benefits of early sharing.  …”

Critical Lessons From Last Week’s Retraction of Two COVID-19 Papers | MedPage Today

“According to an investigative report in The Guardian, Sapan Desai had been previously linked to highly ambitious (and dubious) claims. In 2008, he promoted a “next generation human augmentation device” called Neurodynamics Flow, which he said “can help you achieve what you never thought was possible,” claiming that “with its sophisticated programming, optimal neural induction points, and tried and true results, Neurodynamics Flow allows you to rise to the peak of human evolution.”

It is important to realize that concerns about the existence and validity of the Surgisphere databases surfaced only after the paper on hydroxychloroquine was published. The earlier NEJM paper on inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system was never criticized, even though Surgisphere was the primary data and analytical source.

Why? The NEJM paper included data from 8,910 patients treated at 169 hospitals across three continents (Asia, Europe and North America), a database that may have seemed credible — even though Surgisphere had no track record of publications. In contrast, the Lancet paper cited data from 96,032 patients treated at 671 hospitals from six continents. It seems that the decision by the authors to include data from Australia and Africa represented a fatal strategic error, since these could be far more easily matched up with public records. When the data from these two regions failed to make sense, the paper unraveled. Conceivably, if the authors had not overreached and if they had merely confined their analysis to three continents, it is likely that the Lancet paper would have survived….

The possibility that fraudulent data would have been accepted — if it had not been for the excessive ambitions of the authors — is distressing beyond words. The implications for medical research are profound….

Many have criticized preprint servers because they allow the dissemination of data and information that has not been peer-reviewed. But can we continue to denigrate papers lacking peer review if the process failed us at this critical time? Some might still argue that peer review was highly effective in the two COVID-19 retractions; it simply occurred following (rather than prior to) publication. However, even the staunchest advocates of journals as gatekeepers must concede that the post-publication examination and analysis can occur whether the information is presented in a top-tier journal or on a preprint server….”

The Pandemic Claims New Victims: Prestigious Medical Journals

Two major study retractions in one month have left researchers wondering if the peer review process is broken.

Is Peer Review a Good Idea? | The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science | Oxford Academic

“The costs of scientific publishing will then primarily be in maintaining the archive(s) of publications. The example of existing large preprint archives such as arXiv, bioRxiv, and PhilSci-archive suggests that this can be done at a fraction of the cost currently spent on journal subscription fees. As a rough guideline, Van Noorden ([2013]) estimates maintenance costs of arXiv at just $10 per article. So our proposal involves significant savings on library resources, which could be used to expand collections, retain more or better-trained staff, or other purposes that would be of epistemic benefit to the scientific community.

Two additional effects should be considered in relation to this. First, the fact that the online archive will be open access means that scientific publications will be available to everyone, not just to those with a library subscription or some other form of access to for-profit scientific journals. This will yield epistemic benefits by improving the research capabilities of independent scholars and those at universities with fewer resources….”

Against pandemic research exceptionalism | Science

“The global outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has seen a deluge of clinical studies, with hundreds registered on clinicaltrials.gov. But a palpable sense of urgency and a lingering concern that “in critical situations, large randomized controlled trials are not always feasible or ethical” (1) perpetuate the perception that, when it comes to the rigors of science, crisis situations demand exceptions to high standards for quality. Early phase studies have been launched before completion of investigations that would normally be required to warrant further development of the intervention (2), and treatment trials have used research strategies that are easy to implement but unlikely to yield unbiased effect estimates. Numerous trials investigating similar hypotheses risk duplication of effort, and droves of research papers have been rushed to preprint servers, essentially outsourcing peer review to practicing physicians and journalists. Although crises present major logistical and practical challenges, the moral mission of research remains the same: to reduce uncertainty and enable caregivers, health systems, and policy-makers to better address individual and public health. Rather than generating permission to carry out low-quality investigations, the urgency and scarcity of pandemics heighten the responsibility of key actors in the research enterprise to coordinate their activities to uphold the standards necessary to advance this mission….”