Publish and Who Should Perish: You or Science?

Why More Biologists Must Embrace Quantitative Modeling

Biology as a field has transformed since the time of its foundation from an organized enterprise cataloging the diversity of the natural world to a quantitatively rigorous science seeking to answer complex questions about the functions of organisms and their interactions with each other and their environments. As the mathematical rigor of biological analyses has improved, quantitative models have been developed to describe multi-mechanistic systems and to test complex hypotheses. However, applications of quantitative models have been uneven across fields, and many biologists lack the foundational training necessary to apply them in their research or to interpret their results to inform biological problem-solving efforts. This gap in scientific training has created a false dichotomy of "biologists" and "modelers" that only exacerbates the barriers to working biologists seeking additional training in quantitative modeling. Here, we make the argument that all biologists are modelers and are capable of using sophisticated quantitative modeling in their work. We highlight four benefits of conducting biological research within the framework of quantitative models, identify the potential producers and consumers of information produced by such models, and make recommendations for strategies to overcome barriers to their widespread implementation. Improved understanding of quantitative modeling could guide the producers of biological information to better apply biological measurements through analyses that evaluate mechanisms, and allow consumers of biological information to better judge the quality and applications of the information they receive. As our explanations of biological phenomena increase in complexity, so too must we embrace modeling as a foundational skill.

How do researchers perceive research misbehaviors? A case study of Indian researchers

Despite ample evidence of increasing research misconduct in India, little attention has been paid to understanding researchers' perception of research integrity and research misconduct among young Indian researchers. Interviews among 30 research scholars were conducted at Pondicherry University in India to understand their experience and perception of research misconduct. The top three influencing factors for scientific misconduct, according to the participants, were unavailability of adequate funds (35%), pressure from research supervisors (29%), and desperation to publish articles (25%). The participants had witnessed research misconduct in different forms i.e., data fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. However, plagiarism was the most often cited cause of misbehavior in our interviews. Majority of participants have witnessed or personally encountered multiple instances where authorship conflicts occurred. The other questionable research practices highlighted in the study were improper citations, authorship disputes like gift and ghost authorships, misrepresentation of statistical data, failure to publish negative results. In an increasingly diverse and changing research environment, our research calls for practical research guidelines based on honesty, openness, and accountability that can help articulate and strengthen scientists' core values. More importantly, scientific misconduct can only be prevented by using a multifaceted strategy that includes identifying instances of scientific misconduct and implementing suitable deterrents and treatments that could change the behavior associated with such misconduct.

The Issues with Journal Issues: Let Journals Be Digital Libraries

Science depends on a communication system, and today, that is largely provided by digital technologies such as the internet and web. Despite the fact that digital technologies provide the infrastructure for this communication system, peer-reviewed journals continue to mimic workflows and processes from the print era. This paper focuses on one artifact from the print era, the journal issue, and describes how this artifact has been detrimental to the communication of science, and therefore, to science itself. To replace the journal issue, this paper argues that scholarly publishing and journals could more fully embrace digital technologies by creating digital libraries to present and organize scholarly output.

Open Science Indicators as Metadata Fields?

Since 2000, there has been qualitative growth in the field of scientometrics. Innovations such as the DOI and the ORCID have irrevocably changed the scientific landscape. They have enabled analyses previously unheard of, in the decades preceding the new millennium. This paper proposes open science indicators (open data, open material, preregistration) as article-specific metadata fields. The authors reference the history of funding information, from bare acknowledgements to metadata field. The authors describe the mission of the Center for Open Science, and its TOP Factor database, as well as the performance of open science badges. Possibilities for a pilot study are explored, with an acknowledgement of the complexity of this undertaking.

Plagiarism through Paraphrasing Tools—The Story of One Plagiarized Text

This paper describes a unique case study wherein real plagiarism revealed in a scientific journal is compared with the original article. The plagiarized text contains many typical errors, such as inconsistent terminology, unclear meanings of sentence, missing tables and figures, and an incorrect literature list. The occurrence of similar errors in other manuscripts may serve as a warning against plagiarism. During the analysis of the plagiarized text, it was assumed that a paraphrasing tool was used for preparing this plagiarized text. To confirm this assumption, the chosen paraphrasing tool was used to create a paraphrased version of the article and this version was compared with the plagiarized text. The paraphrased version had far fewer changes from the plagiarized text than the plagiarized text had from the original article. Thus, it was confirmed that the plagiarized text was created using a paraphrasing tool. Information contained in this article can be used for detecting this type of plagiarism.

Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World

Nowadays, the importance of bibliographic databases (DBs) has increased enormously, as they are the main providers of publication metadata and bibliometric indicators universally used both for research assessment practices and for performing daily tasks. Because the reliability of these tasks firstly depends on the data source, all users of the DBs should be able to choose the most suitable one. Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus are the two main bibliographic DBs. The comprehensive evaluation of the DBs’ coverage is practically impossible without extensive bibliometric analyses or literature reviews, but most DBs users do not have bibliometric competence and/or are not willing to invest additional time for such evaluations. Apart from that, the convenience of the DB’s interface, performance, provided impact indicators and additional tools may also influence the users’ choice. The main goal of this work is to provide all of the potential users with an all-inclusive description of the two main bibliographic DBs by gathering the findings that are presented in the most recent literature and information provided by the owners of the DBs at one place. This overview should aid all stakeholders employing publication and citation data in selecting the most suitable DB.

An Overview of the Dynamics of Relative Research Performance in Central-Eastern Europe Using a Ranking-Based Analysis Derived from SCImago Data

In recent times, rankings seem to play an increasingly important role, influencing the lives of individual researchers or academics and their institutions. Individual and institutional rankings used for promotion and research or academic funding seem to illustrate more and more the “publish or perish” mantra, relying sometimes almost exclusively on publications and their citations. Eastern Europe found itself part of this new world after a period of isolation, uneven for the countries within the area. The present study uses SCImago data to perform a regional analysis of individual and aggregated domains, for individual countries and the entire region, based on a novel “adjusted citation index”, in order to measure the performance and identify, using correlations with additional data and information, the mechanisms that can increase the research performance of a country. In a nutshell, the results indicate that the national research policies are responsible for performance. Adaptive research policies simulate a real performance, in comparison with more restrictive ones, which are more likely to stimulate unethical behaviors such as self-citations or citation stacking, especially when used for the assessment of researchers. The importance of the findings lies in the possibility of replicating the methodology, adapting it to different spatial scales.

Time to Acceptance of 3 Days for Papers About COVID-19

Time to acceptance from submission and time to publication (publication lag) determines how quickly novel information is made available to other scientists and experts. In the medical field, the review process and revisions usually takes 3–4 months; the total time from submission to publication is 8–9 months. During the COVID-19 pandemic, information should be available much faster. The analysis of 833 documents published on SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 prior to 19 March 2020 shows that these times shrunk by a factor of ten. The median time to acceptance was three days for all publications, six days for research papers and reviews, four days for case studies and two days for other publication types. The median publication lag was nine days for all publications together, 11 days for research papers, nine days for case studies, 13 days for reviews and seven days for other publications. This demonstrates that the publication process—if necessary—can be sped up. For the sake of scientific accuracy, review times should not be pushed down, but the time from acceptance to actual publication could be shorter.

The Splendors and Miseries of Open Access Scientific Publishing in Ukraine

The letter represents the author’s opinion on the reasons and background of the actively developing practice of unconscientious open access scientific publishing, as well as briefly discussing the current condition of academic publishing and indexation in Ukraine.

Intellectual Structure of CORINE Land Cover Research Applications in Web of Science: A Europe-Wide Review

The objective of this paper is to manifest the intellectual and cognitive structure of CORINE Land Cover (CLC) research applications. Data from the Web of Science (WoS) was used to delimit publication on CLC during the period from 1985 until 2019 (29th April), retrieving a total of 873 documents. Through author citations, the origins and the most influential papers were identified. The main lines of research were identified from word co-occurrences extracted from the titles, keywords, and abstracts of the papers. In the view of both structures, it can be concluded that CORINE land cover constitutes a relatively young set of scientific data, with a constant expansion and a strongly interdisciplinary structure. The development of this application is dependent on the knowledge of such research areas as geography, remote sensing, ecology, forestry, agriculture, engineering, optics, and/or computer science. We believe that this information could be very useful for CLC users, as it reflects a large-scale analysis of the research lines of CLC and illuminates how research has changed over time in diverse areas of applications. Moreover, this study is intended to offer a useful tool for the CLC scientific community, showcasing the main research lines and the most noteworthy papers. Finally, the methodology used in this study can be replicated in many other fields of science to explore its intellectual and cognitive structure.

Replication Papers

Reproductions and replications of experiments and surveys are important for ensuring the healthy development of modern science. The so-called replication crisis is a problem that needs to be addressed in various ways. In this paper, we propose to make a special category for replication papers, where the focus should be to verify or falsify the results of previously-published experiments or surveys. We also propose some guidelines for the types and content of replication papers.

Eugene Garfield’s Ideas and Legacy and Their Impact on the Culture of Research

Eugene Garfield advanced the theory and practice of information science and envisioned information systems that made the discovery of scientific information much more efficient. The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), which he founded in Philadelphia in 1960, developed innovative information products that have revolutionized science. ISI provided current scientific information to researchers all over the world by publishing the table of contents of key scientific journals in the journal Current Contents (CC). Garfield introduced the citation as a qualitative measure of academic impact and propelled the concepts of “citation indexing” and “citation linking”, paving the way for today’s search engines. He created the Science Citation Index (SCI), which raised awareness about citations; triggered the development of new disciplines (scientometrics, infometrics, webometrics); and became the foundation for building new important products such as Web of Science. The journal impact factor (IF), originally designed to select journals for the SCI, became the most widely accepted tool for measuring academic impact. Garfield actively promoted English as the international language of science and became a powerful force in the globalization of research. His ideas changed how researchers gather scientific information, communicate their findings, and advance their careers. This article looks at the impact of Garfield’s ideas and legacy on the culture of research.