This week, we learn about the key trends from the spring 2023 season of publishing conferences. We read the latest updates to the ICMJE recommendations, a preprint on normalizing open science training for researchers, and an article on a new 20-point open science plan agreed by the Council of the EU. We also read about the growth and spread of article processing charges and about how to eliminate bias in peer review. Finally, we highlight that recordings of all sessions from the Center for Open Science’s 10th anniversary symposium are now freely available.
Key trends from spring 2023 conferences in publishing via The Scholarly Kitchen | 6-minute read
This article – written by Alice Meadows (Co-founder of MoreBrains) and Angela Cochran (Vice President of Publishing at the American Society of Clinical Oncology) – looks at the key takeaways from recent meetings in the publishing world. This includes the 19th Annual Meeting of the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) and the 20th plenary meeting of the Research Data Alliance. The themes of these conferences revolved around patient involvement, plain language summaries, artificial intelligence (AI), and the role of persistent identifiers.
Updated ICMJE recommendations via ICMJE | 2-minute read
The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) have updated their Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. Some of the biggest changes include amendments to authorship criteria and the responsibilities of peer reviewers, as well as the addition of recommendations on how the use of AI should be reported. To highlight these changes, the ICMJE have also provided an annotated version of the updated recommendations.
Normalizing open science training for researchers: strategies for implementation via OSF Preprints | 16-minute read
While initiatives do exist to encourage scientists to adopt open practices when conducting their research, these remain uncommon in many scientific fields. This preprint argues that “researchers need training to integrate these practices into their daily work” and outlines eleven strategies for normalizing open science training for researchers. These strategies are broadly classified into three groups: strategies for offering training; strategies for adapting research assessment criteria and programme requirements; and strategies for building communities. As well as providing an overview of the eleven strategies, this article also provides tips for implementation and links to resources.
The Council of the EU agrees 20-point open science plan via University World News | 8-minute read
The Council of the European Union (EU) consists of government ministers from 27 EU member states, and is one of the key decision-making bodies in the EU. Following the lead of the American mandate on open access, the Council of the EU have now agreed on a 20-point open science plan, which represents a huge step towards making publicly funded research immediately available to all. This article looks at what the reaction of European scientific community leaders has been to the announcement of the plan and what it might mean for the future of research publishing in Europe.
The growth of article processing charges in scientific publishing via The Publication Plan | 2-minute read
The use of article processing charges (APCs) to fund open access publishing is becoming ubiquitous in the Global North. Conversely, open access publishing in Latin America relies heavily on institutionally funded open access, which is a type of diamond open access model that removes fees for readers and authors. This article argues that this model is under threat as Latin American authors increasingly prefer to publish in international journals – which tend to charge APCs – due to their perceived prestige. This also results in institutional funding being moved away from diamond open access model investments towards paying for APCs, further damaging the Latin American model.
Does anonymizing authors eliminate peer review bias? via Nature | 5-minute read
Yes – at least according to a recent study published in Functional Ecology. This study found that when the identities and affiliations of submitting authors were anonymized to peer reviewers, unconscious bias was less likely to influence the outcome of the peer review. Without anonymization, research by authors from lower-income nations or nations with lower English proficiency did far worse during peer review than authors in the same field from higher-income, English-speaking countries. Blocking peer reviewers from having knowledge of the author’s nationality or institution removed much of this bias. This article provides a summary of the study, as well as discussing the research with the lead author.
To engage with:
The Center for Open Science celebrates its 10th anniversary via Center for Open Science
The Center for Open Science celebrated its 10th anniversary at the beginning of May in Washington, DC, with a day-long symposium. The symposium featured presentations on the progress, strategies and future directions of open science. If you missed the symposium, or just want to revisit the day, then all of the recordings from the event are now available to watch for free on the Center for Open Science’s YouTube channel.