Latest Articles from European Science Editing Latest 17 Articles from European Science Editing https://ese.arphahub.com/ Fri, 29 Mar 2024 07:50:42 +0200 Pensoft FeedCreator https://ese.arphahub.com/i/logo.jpg Latest Articles from European Science Editing https://ese.arphahub.com/ Acknowledging tribal affiliations in medical research https://ese.arphahub.com/article/106940/ European Science Editing 49: e106940

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2023.e106940

Authors: Christopher H. Wortley

Abstract:

HTML

XML

PDF

]]>
Correspondence Thu, 22 Jun 2023 18:00:00 +0300
Gender differences in time taken for peer review and publishing output in the physical sciences https://ese.arphahub.com/article/78084/ European Science Editing 49: e78084

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2023.e78084

Authors: Emma C. Leedham Elvidge

Abstract: Background: Despite decades of work to improve gender equality in science (and other science, technology, engineering, and maths fields), gender bias still exists and has been shown to impact the retention of women in academic scientific careers. Publication of peer-reviewed articles remains a key criterion for career progression and a common marker of success in academia. Any barriers to publication faced by women may therefore impact their retention and career progression.Objectives: To investigate gender differences within one potential barrier to publication, namely the time taken in peer review, by investigating the question: ‘Is the peer review process longer for papers with (assumed) women as first authors than those with (assumed) male first authors?’Methods: Gender differences in peer review time were analysed for 1100 peer-reviewed papers published between 2006 and 2016 and selected from 5 journals covering a range of physical science disciplines and publication styles.Results: In the physical sciences, male first-authored papers outnumbered female first-authored papers 2:1. However, the analysis showed no statistical difference in the time taken for peer review between the two sets of papers.Conclusion: The time taken to peer review a paper is not linked to the gender of the paper’s first author. However, the large discrepancy in the number of papers with men as first authors compared to that with women as first authors could be a contributing factor to the attrition of women from the academic career ladder (the so-called ‘leaky pipeline’).

HTML

XML

PDF

]]>
Original Article Wed, 22 Mar 2023 10:00:00 +0200
Gender balance and geographical diversity in editorial boards of Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta and Chemical Geology https://ese.arphahub.com/article/89470/ European Science Editing 48: e89470

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e89470

Authors: Olivier Pourret, Pallavi Anand, Pieter Bots, Elizabeth Cottrell, Anthony Dosseto, Ashley Gunter, David W. Hedding, Daniel Enrique Ibarra, Dasapta Erwin Irawan, Karen Johannesson, Jabrane Labidi, Susan Little, Haiyan Liu, Tebogo Vincent Makhubela, Johanna Marin Carbonne, Alida Perez-Fodich, Amy Riches, Romain Tartèse, Aradhna Tripati

Abstract: Background: Members of editorial boards of academic journals are often considered gatekeepers of knowledge and role models for the academic community. Editorial boards should be sufficiently diverse in the background of their members to facilitate publishing manuscripts representing a wide range of research paradigms, methods, and cultural perspectives.Objectives: To critically evaluate changes in the representation of binary gender and geographic diversity over time on the editorial boards of Chemical Geology and Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, flagship geochemistry journals, respectively, from the European Association of Geochemistry and the Geochemical Society – Meteoritical Society partnership.Methods: The composition of editorial boards was ascertained as given in the first issue of each year, over 1965–2021 for Chemical Geology and 1950–2021 for Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, and members of the editorial boards were coded for their country of affiliation (the country of origin may have been different) and for their binary gender.Results: Gender parity, limited to men and women, and the number of countries of affiliation increased steadily between the late 1980s and 2021. However, the geographic distribution remained dominated by affiliations from North America and Western Europe. The editor-in-chief or board of editors had a significant impact on the diversity of the editorial boards, and both geographic and gender diversity may evolve with nearly every newly appointed editor. However, the persistently substantial under-representation on editorial boards of affiliations outside North America and Europe is of concern and needs to be the focus of active recruitment and ongoing monitoring. This approach will ensure that traditionally low geographic diversity is increased and maintained in the future.Conclusion: Improving diversity and inclusion of editorial boards of academic journals and strengthening journal and disciplinary reputations are mutually reinforcing. Instituting a rotating editorship with emphasis on embedding broader geographic networks and more equitable international recruitment could ensure sustained and wider geographic representation and gender balance of editorial boards and promote originality and quality of published research, representing our global communities.

HTML

XML

PDF

]]>
Original Article Thu, 22 Dec 2022 08:00:00 +0200
Country information in titles – equality or equity https://ese.arphahub.com/article/89445/ European Science Editing 48: e89445

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e89445

Authors: Kate Wilson

Abstract:

HTML

XML

PDF

]]>
Correspondence Thu, 13 Oct 2022 10:00:00 +0300
The Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines: Implementation and checklist development https://ese.arphahub.com/article/86910/ European Science Editing 48: e86910

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e86910

Authors: Heather Van Epps, Olaya Astudillo, Yaiza Del Pozo Martin, Joan Marsh

Abstract: Understanding sex and gender differences is fundamental to rigorous and inclusive research, whether studying disease pathophysiology, sociodemographic determinants of health, or the benefits and harms of medical or social interventions. The inclusion of gender-diverse study populations has improved, but the reporting of sex and gender variables in research is still incomplete. The Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines, published in 2016, have been widely endorsed, but few scientific journals and organizations have incorporated them into formal editorial guidance and publication policies. To facilitate monitoring of and adherence to the SAGER guidelines in Lancet journals, we carried out an informal pilot study and developed a checklist to enable rapid editorial checks, promote uptake of the guidelines by other editors and journals, and raise awareness among peer reviewers and authors. By using this checklist as part of manuscript assessment and peer-review processes, journal editors can support best reporting practices when considering sex and gender as variables, improving the generalizability of the research they publish.

HTML

XML

PDF

]]>
Review Wed, 5 Oct 2022 09:00:00 +0300
Equity in reporting settings of studies https://ese.arphahub.com/article/87545/ European Science Editing 48: e87545

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e87545

Authors: Duleeka Knipe, Rachel Jewkes

Abstract:

HTML

XML

PDF

]]>
Correspondence Wed, 7 Sep 2022 11:00:00 +0300
Trends in the proportion of women as reviewers, editors, and editorial board members of 15 North American and British medical journals from 2014 to 2019: A retrospective study https://ese.arphahub.com/article/80709/ European Science Editing 48: e80709

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e80709

Authors: Roxanna Wang, Robin Roberts, James C Fredenburgh, Mary Cushman, Jeffrey I Weitz

Abstract: Background and objective: There is persistent men-dominated gender disparity in medical academia. Predominance of men in the editorial makeup of medical journals might contribute to this inequity. This retrospective study (2014–2019)sought to evaluate gender representation in reviewers, editors, and members of the editorial boards in 15 leading medical journals from the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom.Methods: We surveyed lists of reviewers, editors, and editorial board members from seven journals of internal medicine, a specialty dominated by men; three journals of obstetrics and gynaecology and two of paediatrics, specialties dominated by women; and three journals of psychiatry, a gender-balanced specialty. Information from publicly available resources was used to infer gender, and the percentages of women were calculated. Trends over time were characterized by changes in these percentages from year to year through the linear regression line fitted to the data for each journal.Results: Journals of women-dominated specialties had significantly higher proportions of women reviewers than those of men-dominated or gender-balanced specialties, with mean percentages (95% confidence interval) of 45.8% (40.5%–51.1%), 28.0% (22.3%–33.7%), and 33.8% (27.6%–40.1%), respectively (p <0.001). The proportion of women editors and editorial board members showed no statistically significant differences across the three specialties, and the percentage of women reviewers, editors, and editorial board members increased only slightly over time.Conclusion: These results suggest that the fifteen journals are yet to achieve gender parity in their reviewers, editors, and editorial board members, and continued efforts are needed to achieve gender balance in those three groups of medical academia.

HTML

XML

PDF

]]>
Original Article Tue, 5 Jul 2022 11:00:00 +0300
Needs of early-career professionals in STM: Findings from two surveys https://ese.arphahub.com/article/79315/ European Science Editing 48: e79315

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e79315

Authors: Erin Foley, Rachel Moriarty, Kerys Martin

Abstract: Background: The Early Career Publishers Committee (ECPC) of the STM Association (the International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers)’s Early Career Publishers Committee (ECPC) aims to engage, and provide tools and resources for, early-career publishers (ECPs) and professionals. The committee believes it is important to survey the community regularly to understand the background, needs, and concerns of its members to better achieve the committee’s goals.Objectives: Early-career professionals were surveyed in 2014 and 2020: the first survey was undertaken to get a baseline understanding of the community and to guide the newly formed ECPC whereas the second not only sought to review some aspects of the first survey but also to identify and explore ways to improve engagement and support through new or revised survey questions.Methods: The two surveys were conducted online through the ECPC mailing list and social networks. The surveys were voluntary, with the option to skip some questions, and responses – some in the form of a rating scale – were collected anonymously. Each survey remained open for over a month to maximize responses, but neither was pretested. Some questions in the first survey were revised in the second in the light of learnings from the first survey.Results: Most of respondents were women, 25–54 years old, from the UK or the US, with higher degrees, and working in editorial roles. In the second survey, many respondents were interested in developing their career either in their current role or in a different one, and nearly half were actively seeking a new role. Over half said that finding the right role was a challenge. Many had never participated in a publishing-related mentoring scheme, and most had not heard of the STM mentoring scheme before.Conclusions: More tools, resources, and outreach for entry-level and younger industry members, for those from countries outside the UK and US, and for those seeking to develop their careers may be useful in the future. The mentoring scheme could be publicized more prominently to drive engagement. A new survey will be needed in the next 2–3 years, given the potential impact of the COVID-19 global pandemic on the number of respondents in the second (2020) survey and their motivation.

HTML

XML

PDF

]]>
Original Article Thu, 26 May 2022 09:00:00 +0300
Academia's challenges in the face of the 2022 Russia-Ukraine war https://ese.arphahub.com/article/83864/ European Science Editing 48: e83864

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e83864

Authors: Jaime Teixeira da Silva

Abstract: The European Union (EU), and Europe more widely, is facing its largest socio-political threat in a generation. As the political events between Russia and Ukraine, which have been festering since at least 2014, have now turned into a war, with many major Western and EU companies barring business with Russia, and with most Western Governments imposing increasingly stiffer sanctions on Russia, where do non-Russian academic publishers stand? This commentary takes a brief look at what we know, and where we stand. A humanitarian response is needed, but so too is a decision regarding treatment of Russian and Ukrainian academics.

HTML

XML

PDF

]]>
Correspondence Fri, 15 Apr 2022 10:00:00 +0300
Peer review: economy, identity, diversity https://ese.arphahub.com/article/76284/ European Science Editing 47: e76284

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2021.e76284

Authors: Jocalyn Clark, Reshma Jagsi

Abstract: To meet the needs of their wide-ranging audiences, journals and editors must publish science that reflects the diversity of the communities they serve. And yet we collectively neglect the importance of optimizing the diversity of peer reviewers. This viewpoint explores the vital economy and identity of peer reviewers, and how these can help improve diversity in peer review. Economy, because this form of labour props up a publishing system, doling out the main form of currency within academia, and identity, because what peer reviewers contribute extends beyond their disciplinary expertise to their sense of self and what they represent: the backgrounds, values, and views they bring to the work of reviewing scientific papers.

HTML

XML

PDF

]]>
Viewpoint Mon, 13 Dec 2021 10:00:00 +0200
The contribution of authors from low- and middle-income countries to top-tier mental health journals https://ese.arphahub.com/article/72187/ European Science Editing 47: e72187

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2021.e72187

Authors: Joseph El Khoury, Riwa Kanj, Lynn Adam, Rama Kanj, Abdul Jalil Hajaig, Firas Haddad, Rita Christie El Helou

Abstract: Background: Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have been consistently under-represented in the pool of contributors to academic journals on health. For the past two decades, prominent voices within the psychiatric profession have called for better representation of LMICs in the interest of advancing the understanding of mental health globally and benefiting health systems in these countries.Objective: To investigate the absolute and relative representation of authors affiliated to institutes from LMICs in the most influential journals on mental health in 2019.Method: Thirty top-ranking journals on mental health based on Scimago Journal Rank were selected, and all papers other than correspondence and letters to the editor published in those journals in 2019 were examined to extract the country of affiliation of each of their authors and their position (corresponding author, first author, second author).Results: Of the 4022 articles examined, 3720 articles (92.5%) were written exclusively by authors from high-income countries (HICs); 302 (7.5%) featured one or more authors from a LMIC along with those from HICs; 91 (2.2%) featured authors only from one LMIC; and only 3 (0.07%) featured authors from more than one LMICs but without any co-author from a HIC. The ratio of articles by contributors from LMICs to all the articles published in 2019 in a given journal ranged from 0% to 19%. Of 1855 individual contributors from 45 LMICs, 1050 (56%) were from China.Conclusion: Despite the growth of the global health movement and frequent calls for academic inclusivity, LMICs were significantly under-represented among the authors of papers published in top-ranking journals on mental health in 2019.

HTML

XML

PDF

]]>
Original Article Thu, 21 Oct 2021 14:10:00 +0300
Rethinking the use of the term ‘Global South’ in academic publishing https://ese.arphahub.com/article/67829/ European Science Editing 47: e67829

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2021.e67829

Authors: Jaime Teixeira da Silva

Abstract: ‘Global South’, a term frequently used on websites and in papers related to academic and ‘predatory’ publishing, may represent a form of unscholarly discrimination. Arguments are put forward as to why the current use of this term is geographically meaningless, since it implies countries in the southern hemisphere, whereas many of the entities in publishing that are referred to as being part of the Global South are in fact either on the equator or in the northern hemisphere. Therefore, academics, in writing about academic publishing, should cease using this broad, culturally insensitive, and geographically inaccurate term.

HTML

XML

PDF

]]>
Viewpoint Thu, 26 Aug 2021 10:00:00 +0300
The need for a new set of measures to assess the impact of research in earth sciences in Indonesia https://ese.arphahub.com/article/59032/ European Science Editing 47: e59032

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2021.e59032

Authors: Dasapta Erwin Irawan, Juneman Abraham, Jonathan Peter Tennant, Olivier Pourret

Abstract: Background: Earth sciences is one of those sensitive field sciences that are closely needed to solve local problems within local physical and social settings. Earth researchers find state-of-the-art of topics in earth sciences by using scientific databases, conduct research on the topics, and write about them. However, the accessibility, readability, and usability of those articles for local communities are major problems in measuring the impact of research, although it may be covered by well-known international scientific databases.Objectives: To ascertain empirically whether there are differences in document distribution, in the proportions of openly accessible documents, and in the geographical coverage of earth sciences topics as revealed through analyses of documents retrieved from scientific databases and to propose new measures for assessing the impact of research in earth sciences based on those differences.Methods: Relevant documents were retrieved using ‘earth sciences’ as a search term in English and other languages from ten databases of scientific publications. The results of these searches were analysed using frequency analysis and a quantitative- descriptive design.Results: (1) The number of articles in English from international databases exceeded the number of articles in native languages from national-level databases. (2) The number of open-access (OA) articles in the national databases was higher than that in other databases. (3) The geographical coverage of earth science papers was uneven between countries when the number of documents retrieved from closed-access commercial databases was compared to that from the other databases. (4) The regulations in Indonesia related to promotion of lecturers assign greater weighting to publications indexed in Scopus and the Web of Science (WoS) and publications in journals with impact factors are assigned a higher weighting.Conclusions: The dominance of scientific articles in English as well as the paucity of OA publications indexed in international databases (compared to those in national or regional databases) may have been due to the greater weighting assigned to such publications. Consequently, the relevance of research reported in those publications to local communities has been questioned. This article suggests some open-science practices to transform the current regulations related to promotion into a more responsible measurement of research performance and impact.

HTML

XML

PDF

]]>
Original Article Thu, 8 Jul 2021 09:00:00 +0300
International disparities in open access practices in the Earth Sciences https://ese.arphahub.com/article/63663/ European Science Editing 47: e63663

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2021.e63663

Authors: Olivier Pourret, David William Hedding, Daniel Enrique Ibarra, Dasapta Erwin Irawan, Haiyan Liu, Jonathan Peter Tennant

Abstract: Background: Open access (OA) implies free and unrestricted access to and re-use of research articles. Recently, OA publishing has seen a new wave of interest, debate, and practices surrounding that mode of publishing.Objectives: To provide an overview of publication practices and to compare them among six countries across the world to stimulate further debate and to raise awareness about OA to facilitate decision-making on further development of OA practices in earth sciences.Methods: The number of OA articles, their distribution among the six countries, and top ten journals publishing OA articles were identified using two databases, namely Scopus and the Web of Science, based mainly on the data for 2018.Results: In 2018, only 24%–31% of the total number of articles indexed by either of the databases were OA articles. Six of the top ten earth sciences journals that publish OA articles were fully OA journals and four were hybrid journals. Fully OA journals were mostly published by emerging publishers and their article processing charges ranged from $1000 to $2200.Conclusions: The rise in OA publishing has potential implications for researchers and tends to shift article-processing charges from organizations to individuals. Until the earth sciences community decides to move away from journal-based criteria to evaluate researchers, it is likely that such high costs will continue to maintain financial inequities within this research community, especially to the disadvantage of researchers from the least developed countries. However, earth scientists, by opting for legal self- archiving of their publications, could help to promote equitable and sustainable access to, and wider dissemination of, their work.

HTML

XML

PDF

]]>
Original Article Thu, 10 Jun 2021 10:30:00 +0300
Obstacles to health care research projects at the University of Jordan: a cross-sectional survey https://ese.arphahub.com/article/61658/ European Science Editing 47: e61658

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2021.e61658

Authors: Randa Farah, Saif Aldeen AlRyalat, Wala'a Aburumman, Dana Sakaji, Muna Alhusban, Reem Hamasha, Majd Alkhrissat, Mohammad Qablawi, Ayat Alni’mat

Abstract: Objective: To assess the obstacles faced by biomedical researchers in Jordan and the reasons behind the stagnation of health care research.Background: Health care research is essential for the advancement of medical care but faces obstacles that delay the completion of research projects, and the literature is still deficient, especially in developing countries.Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted of all academic staff of health care faculties at the University of Jordan who had been employed for five years or more and had at least one stagnant research project. Questionnaires were completed by the academic staff online using Google Forms after a face-to-face interview to explain the study process to them.Results: A total of 82 researchers with a mean age of 42.68 (±9.16) years were included most of whom (84.1%) had only one stagnant project. Of the 106 stagnant projects, 28.3% were in the basic sciences and 71.7% were in clinical research. Almost a third (29.5%) of the projects remained stagnant after reaching the publication stage. Most researchers (81.3%) identified lack of time and high workload as the most common personal barriers and 44.4% identified lack of funds and research incentives as the most common institutional barriers.Conclusions: Medical research is affected by different barriers including lack of time, high workload, lack of funds, and insufficient incentives for research. An institutional strategic plan is required to overcome those barriers and to improve medical research.

HTML

XML

PDF

]]>
Original Article Fri, 30 Apr 2021 10:00:00 +0300
Suggestions for fortifying the discoverability of papers published in European Science Editing https://ese.arphahub.com/article/57377/ European Science Editing 46: e57377

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2020.e57377

Authors: Jaime Teixeira da Silva

Abstract: European Science Editing (ESE), a platinum open access journal, is gaining recognition as one of the prime outlets for publishing-related topics, as evidenced by its 2019 rise into the second quarter of Scimago’s Journal Rankings and by its Scopus CiteScore of 1.3. However, the discoverability of knowledge and information in ESE is currently limited by the fact that manuscripts published before 2003 are not indexed, that none of the papers published before May 2016 have a DOI, and that not all information that appears on the html version of a paper appears on its PDF version, and vice versa. Finally, because ESE is already indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals, all papers should be archived on that platform. Such improvements would undoubtedly take time and some resources, but if they could be achieved, the discoverability of the journal would clearly be fortified.

HTML

XML

PDF

]]>
Correspondence Thu, 17 Sep 2020 10:00:00 +0300
ESE and EASE call for high standards of research and editing https://ese.arphahub.com/article/53230/ European Science Editing 46: e53230

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2020.e53230

Authors: Ksenija Bazdaric, Pippa Smart

Abstract: The world has changed in the past few months in a way most of us could not imagine. The words “novel corona virus’’ (SARS-CoV-2), “COVID-19’’, “prevention”, “flattening the curve’’ and “hand washing’’ have become constant references within the daily news reports of mortality rates, the lack of equipment and possible therapies. The novel corona virus (SARS-CoV-2), which was first identified in the Chinese province of Hubei, has led to a pandemic and the whole scientific community, both in the public and privately-financed sector, is searching for an effective therapy as well as for a vaccine. All scientists (clinicians, epidemiologists, virologists, and public health experts) are under great pressure to give advice on matters where there is still no evidence.We are used to reading fake news and non-filtered information in the media, but are we ready for similar occurrences in science journals?

HTML

XML

PDF

]]>
Editorial Wed, 29 Apr 2020 17:20:00 +0300