- This event has passed.
Understanding publication practices, (models and time-courses) across disciplines to improve the impact of your inter-disciplinary research
An inter-disciplinary discussion at ILCB
In our modern science practices, it would not be surprising to hear that the three most important assets for a scientist are… publication, publication, publication!
But what exactly is a publication? The answer to this question could be very different across disciplines, and many of its significant aspects are evolving.
Across disciplines, the increment of knowledge is conceived and packaged in diverse formats (working papers, proceedings, monographies, articles, etc.) which are attributed vastly diverse value.
Across disciplines, the relationship between the author, the reviewers and the publishers can be vastly different. The business models of scientific publication have experienced major innovations in recent times, and presumably more changes lie ahead.
Across disciplines, the course of conception, dissemination, and archiving of a scientific contribution are practiced quite differently. The public discussion of findings can precede or follow publication. In some disciplines, the predictions preceding an empirical study can now be archived in advance as pre-registrations, which can be referred to later to clarify whether the authors observed exactly what they predicted or predicted exactly what they observed, thus strengthening the impact of the contributions.
The inter-disciplinary “Institut Convergences ILCB” (Institute for Language, Communication, and the Brain) organizes a scientific discussion about current publication practices across disciplines. The issues above and related topics will be discussed by 4 specialist speakers.
This scientific discussion will have two goals. First, to create common knowledge, across practitioners of different disciplines, of what their collaborators in other domains consider a scientific contribution. Second, to reflect upon and hopefully improve the publication strategies of researchers.
11h00 – 11h10: Motivations for this seminar by F.-Xavier Alario, P. Blache, E. Runnqvist (ILCB)
11h10 – 11h50: Peer review across disciplines: from mutual ignorance to standards setting? by Didier Torny (Mines ParisTech – Paris)
11h50 – 12h30: Registered Reports: A vaccine against bias in science and publishing by Chris Chambers (Cardiff University, Editor of the journal Cortex)
12h30 – 13h30: Lunch on site
13h30 – 13h40: An insight into the publishing models in the Humanities and Social Sciences by Sandra Guigonis (OpenEdition, Centre pour l’édition electronique ouverte)
13h40 – 14h20: Researchers regain control of their means of publication by Marie Farge (Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris)
14h20 – 14h50: Round table (30 debate)
14h50 – end: Coffee, discussions, etc.
Abstracts in the next page
Didier Torny, Peer review across disciplines: from mutual ignorance to standards setting?
Peer review is often claimed as the only way to provide certified knowledge to scientific communities and various audiences. However, this very recent label includes a multitude of different, even contradictory, practices, devices, values. Interdisciplinary research, and the existence large publishing groups around the world have first created unexpected meetings between once unique forms of evaluation and publication, then some actors have tried to unify practices through different channels (guidelines, technical infrastructure, shared rules). The presentation will illustrate some contemporary examples of this rich history, including questions of the anonymity of authors and reviewers and the introduction of post-publication peer review in journals.
Chris Chambers, Registered Reports: A vaccine against bias in science and publishing
In 2013, Cortex became the first journal to offer Registered Reports, a format of preregistered empirical publication in which peer review happens prior to data collection and analysis (see https://cos.io/rr/). The aim of Registered Reports is to overcome publication bias and various forms of researcher bias (e.g. selective reporting of statistically significant results and hindsight bias), by performing peer review in part before studies commence. Publishability is then decided by the importance of the research question and quality of the methodology, and never based on the results of hypothesis testing. In this talk I will introduce the concept of Registered Reports and provide an update on its progress at at Cortex and beyond, including its uptake by more than 150 journals, including outlets in the Nature group, generalist journals including Royal Society Open Science, and emerging clinical trial formats. I will also discuss early evidence of impacts on the field and emerging Registered Report funding models in which journals and funders simultaneously assess proposed protocols. Together with a wide range of allied initiatives, Registered Reports are helping to reshape the life and social sciences to place theory, transparency and reproducibility at the forefront.
Sandra Guigonis, An insight into the publishing models in the Humanities and Social Sciences
OpenEdition is a comprehensive digital publishing infrastructure at the service of scientific information in the Humanities and Social Sciences. It provides the academic communities with four publishing and information platforms: OpenEdition Journals (504 journals), OpenEdition Books (6,775 books), Hypotheses (2,870 Research blogs) and Calenda (41,094 announcements of international academic events). The portal is thus a space dedicated to the promotion and dissemination of research, publishing tens of thousands of scientific documents that promote open access, while respecting the economic equilibrium of publications. It benefits therefore from a comprehensive overview on the publishing models in the HSS, be it traditional practices or emerging trends.
Marie Farge, Researchers regain control of their means of publication
The scientific edition is currently owned by an oligopoly of a few publishers, who consider it an exceptionally juicy market. Thus, scientists have lost control of their publishing tools and have become “cash cows”, forced to produce ever more and faster…. I will explain how the “Gold Open Access” model, designed by these publishers to preserve their market, undermines scientific creativity and the public finances that support research. I will show how the “Green Open Access” model and the “Diamond Open Access” model, designed by researchers to disseminate their publications, avoid these perverse effects. I will present as examples the platforms https:// dissem.in and https://www.centre-mersenne.org/.