Cadmore media player playing video Ask a Researcher
Video Player
Accessibility
Using forms mode, you can utilize keyboard shortcuts to make usability more efficient.
Space bar will play and pause the video. Pressing escape will close all displays and pressing it again will jump to the end of the player.
You can press A to open the Keyboard Shortcut Dialog which also provides an audio description of the player and all of its features.
Language
1x
Play Speed
Adjust Volume
Transcript
Search
Result Count
of
Click to jump to result
Search
Re-center
Segments
Result Count
of
Click to jump to result
Search
Name:
Ask a Researcher
Description:
Ask a Researcher
Thumbnail URL:
https://cadmoremediastorage.blob.core.windows.net/9d0e793f-c86e-4d5a-8ce5-693390a3019b/thumbnails/9d0e793f-c86e-4d5a-8ce5-693390a3019b.jpg
Duration:
T01H06M32S
Embed URL:
https://stream.cadmore.media/player/9d0e793f-c86e-4d5a-8ce5-693390a3019b
Content URL:
https://cadmoreoriginalmedia.blob.core.windows.net/9d0e793f-c86e-4d5a-8ce5-693390a3019b/GMT20230621-150020_Recording_gallery_1920x1080.mp4?sv=2019-02-02&sr=c&sig=bhB6h%2FPZb4kfrpgaEruGWz0gnBMH4EdOyDtg0ySaaHo%3D&st=2024-11-26T08%3A41%3A39Z&se=2024-11-26T10%3A46%3A39Z&sp=r
Upload Date:
2024-04-10T00:00:00.0000000
Transcript:
Language: EN.
Segment:0 .
Thank you and welcome to today's Ask the experts panel. We are pleased you can join our discussion with researchers. I am David Meyers, CFP education committee member and a senior lead publisher at Wolters kluwer. Before we start, I want to thank our 2023 education sponsors over care 57 1,000 we have reached for your support.
A few housekeeping items attending microphones have been muted automatically. So please use the Q&A panel to end questions from the panelists agenda. Questions you have participated. You can also use the chair to communicate with each other or organizers. Those captions have enabled you can do captions by selecting the More option on your screen and choosing show captions.
This one hour session will be recorded and available to view in a few days. A quick note on xrp's code of conduct. In today's meeting we are committed to diversity, equity and providing an inclusive meeting environment, fostering open dialogue, free of harassment, discrimination and hostile conduct. We ask all participants whether speaking or chat, consider and debate relevant viewpoints in an orderly, respectful and fair manner.
It's now my pleasure to introduce our moderator, Dr. glennis Staton. Dr. scatting is an honorary consultant physician for the Royal National Hospital in London and honorary associate professor in Division of immunity and infection at University College London. Her research interests include rhinitis and its comorbidities, but the asthma and rhinosinusitis aspirin, hypersensitivity and sublingual immunotherapy.
Dr. scatting is heavily involved in publishing society activities, especially chief editor for the radiology section of frontiers and allergy board, member at leaf rhinitis in euphoria. And as president of the British Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and overview. Dr. Staton. David, Thank you very much indeed. Hello, everyone and welcome to the webinar.
I'd like all our panelists to introduce themselves in turn telling us about where they are in their academic careers. And let's start with the Lettie. Karina, please, can you tell us about yourself? Hello, everybody. My name is Karina selenium. I am a pi, a group leader at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.
I am based in Zurich. It's a late afternoon for me. Ahmed, could you tell us about yourself? Sure I am an associate professor of otolaryngology at the University of Cincinnati in the USA. I am the division chief for radiology, allergy and anterior skull based surgery in our department and heavily involved in research and also editing, publishing multiple editorial boards and serve as associate editor on three for three journals in our field.
Fantastic Luke pantoliano. Hi, everybody. I'm Luke brandolino, and I'm a clinical fellow at the real national EMT in London. I'm also a PhD student at the University College London. And my specific area of interest is radiology and facial plastics. And my research activity is mainly now focusing on loss of sense of smell in upper respiratory tract diseases, measurements of nasal airflow, nasal surgery and vasculitis affecting the nose and sinuses.
Thank you and wishing. Yeah hi, I'm Ashley Ryan. I'm a postdoctoral researcher at the Department of methodology and statistics at Utrecht University. Actually, next week I will serve a new position as an assistant professor in the Department of data science and biostatistics in the Medical Center here. And yeah, my research focuses on developing and applying causal inference and time series analysis techniques in social and behavioral science settings.
Pregnant I'd like to start by asking you all about editorial boards and whether you serve on them. Now, Ahmed, you said you did, so let's hear which ones you serve on and why. So I am currently the associate editor for radiology for international forum of Allergy and radiology and also an open access journal called laryngoscope investigative anthology.
I am on the editorial board also of clinical otolaryngology, European archives of renal biology, and also on the editorial board of otolaryngology-head neck surgery, which is the Journal of the American Academy of Otolaryngology. I've been on other editorial boards in the past as well. The most recent one I can think of was the annals of allergy, asthma and immunology, which was a fantastic board to be on.
So those are the big ones, I would say, and most recent ones. That's a lot of work. It is. How do you do it? I enjoy it. Oh, good. Do you do it in your spare time? Yeah I mean, you mean as opposed to during the workday?
Yeah Yeah. You know, I, I'm a busy researcher. You know, I didn't say it exactly, but I'm heavily involved in clinical research and outcomes research related to chronic rhinosinusitis. I'm actually also a very busy clinician, and then I do these things also on top of all of that. And I, I have over time just between all of my interests and what I do have been forced to be very efficient with my time.
And, and so I somehow managed to get it all done. Of course, a lot of it leaks into the after hours and the weekends, but. You know, that's just do it when you have to do it. That's amazing. We have a nice comment in the chat. It seems that you have more than 24 hours. In your day. No you know, I honestly think with titles and all these things aside, I think actually what I. What I'm proudest of, I think, is just being able to manage and handle all of those.
And I think when you're sort of forced to do those things, you just learn how to become efficient with your time. So it's very kind of him to say that. But I think just have to we find ways of we talk about work life integration and harmony these days instead of work life balance. And because I do what I love, it's really not that big of a deal for me. OK, carina, tell us about yourself.
Editorial boards. Yes I have taken part in an editorial board as a guest associate editor in frontiers, and I was invited to be one to manage one research topic, which was related to my direct work, actually what we're studying in oncology topic. That was a wonderful experience, I must say, getting to know the authors and other editors. Yeah, it's very positive.
Do you do editorial boards? No, I'm not actually on any editorial boards. If not, why not? What's are you too busy? Are you not interested? Largely, I haven't been invited necessarily by anybody, but I also haven't sort this out yet. I think this is something. Yeah, to be honest, at this point in my career, it seemed like a bit of a time drain.
I wanted to focus on other things, but yeah, I notice more and more as I progress. This is the type of thing that grant agencies look for in applications. This type of experience is something I kind of started to orient myself towards right now. OK, well, if there's anyone listening with a suitable editorial board, they might be coming to find you soon.
And Luca, tell us your experience. Yeah, well, at the moment I'm not a member of any editorial board. And although I've been invited in the past, sadly, I had to reject those offers because I didn't have enough time. And this is something that definitely I will consider in the future. But what I found quite difficult as a clinician was basically to find the right time, some spare time in my weekly schedule, just to combine my clinical activities with possible editorial workload.
So at that stage, at this stage, I'm trying to prioritize my, my clinical activities, but it's something that's in the future. Definitely, I will think about finding some spare time to dedicate to some editorial board activities. Yeah now I think for most of us these activities are largely unpaid. But how would you feel if the editorial boards suggested payment for your work?
Would it make any difference to you? It sure it's better, right? I wouldn't turn down money. Right Yeah. I mean, I think I was thinking about this and I think there's always a we always do these things for a reason. And part of it is actually, I think, a sense of duty to especially your field and to science in general as investigators.
A lot of us, I think as researchers feel that way, but especially as you get busier and busier and you're already providing a lot of service to your field there, there needs to be some maybe additional motivation to do some of these things and to take up more of your time, especially now you have family and things like that, that you have to also manage. It doesn't have to be money. And like you said, I mean, actually, all of the things that I do right now, none of them am I getting paid for.
But but certainly if the journals decided to start paying me one day, I wouldn't turn it down. But I do get some personal things out of participating in those journals, some benefits, for example, getting involved in my field, getting involved in the societies that the journals are associated with. So there are some personal benefits. I mean, nothing monetary or anything like that, but things that give me satisfaction, career satisfaction, personal satisfaction from being involved in those journals.
Yeah do any of the rest of you think that payment might make a difference to your willingness to serve any views? Washington would it make a difference to you? Oh, I don't necessarily think so. But I think I would like to echo what Ahmed said. It's not like the main reason why you would do something like this, but I think it might tip the balance a little bit in favor of one journal over another.
I would not even think of it as paper. It's more like compensation for the fact that you are doing a lot of labor in your free time is not exactly something you would invoice to somebody you are getting paid to do work for. But I mean, if you could hire, you could add on an extra year for research assistants because of all of this time you put in. I think that would be like even like a token level of compensation would be like attractive, but it wouldn't be the deciding factor for me.
Yeah any comments, karina? Would it make a difference to you? You agree with both? Both? Luka. Yeah, I definitely agree with both. Although I'm not in any editorial board, so it could be quite easy for me to say my position. But an alternative to the payment sometimes is not the payment itself.
The money could be just for the employer, either the hospital, the university, just to allocate a protected slot in your weekly timetable that you could spend on your reviewing papers or just your editorial meeting or other editorial commitments. So something that is recognized and you actually have some safe and allocated and safe time just to spend on that, that could be an option without you spending time during your weekends.
Yeah, we have a couple of questions in the chat about this. Elaine Stott has asked us when deciding whether to join an editorial board or not. Does it matter to you whether the journal publisher is commercial or not for profit? Who would like to answer that? Yeah I think for me it would make a difference.
I think when looking at doing that type of paper for a journal, I think there are like two factors which would be important to me. One is like on a very surface level, like the prestige and reputation of the journal, because on the surface level this is going to further your career more than less prestigious journals, but also you get to actually interact with authors and work of high quality generally.
But the other factor is, of course, whether this is for profit or not. So ideally you would like a very prestigious journal with a great reputation that's completely not for profit, but unfortunately don't necessarily exist that much. So if that were to exist, that would be what I would pick. But somehow you have to pay this prestige for not for profit. Think for me. Yeah Yeah.
Karina, what about you? Yeah, I would also agree with ocean, but I also realized that we just spoke about getting paid and then how would a general non-for-profit be able to then handle all of this? So yeah, for me, I think that would not matter too much, I would say. OK, Ahmed, does it matter to you? Whether it's a not for profit journal, it's not it's not a huge factor.
And honestly, it hasn't been something that has run through my mind or not for me. I'm what gets me excited about being active in these journals is that there are journals of my field and it's a way of contributing to my field. And it's also I think one of the reasons why, as we were talking about earlier, why it's so important to be a peer reviewer and being on an editorial board, is that to a higher degree and then so forth, moving up the chain.
Why this is so important is that it's our responsibilities to maintain a certain level of quality and rigor in the science that goes into our field. And when you're involved in peer review, that's you're participating in that process. And I think that's why I always say, you know what? Like the talk I gave yesterday, what I say, this is our duty to be involved. And that's what motivates me.
And, you know, if by chance, you know, the journals of our field are run by for profit publishers or something like that, I mean, the fact of the matter is publishing has a cost and there is a business side to all of this. I'm not really that involved in it. I see bits and pieces of it as an associate editor. But but there's costs associated with publishing. And if some of these journals have found that the best way of maintaining long term stability is to be part of a for profit publishing house, you know, I think those are bigger discussions, but that at the level of doing peer reviews, being on an editorial board, being an associate editor or even an editor, I don't think would play a huge factor.
And currently doesn't for me in terms of my decisions to participate. And I'll only add the caveat that if by chance, if I were to find out that one of these publishing houses was predatory or something like that or had like unethical practices, that would make a big difference to me. But but just as a matter of for profit or not for profit, that's not the major driver for me.
And I sort of describe what the major drivers are for me. Thank you, Luka. How do you feel? Yeah, I definitely agree with the others, so it wouldn't matter to me if it is a profit or non-profit. I would probably look at other factors like the quality of the journals or just the other members of editorial board. Of the editorial board look at possible collaborations and prestige of the journal.
So I would look at factors probably turn non-profit in just deciding to join the editorial board or not. OK we have another relevant question from Britta Mueller. Now could I make one just comment in response related to what? Something that Luka said and just as a Warning that I would give to some. So one of the things that Luka said was he would look at maybe who's on the editorial board of that journal.
And I think that's actually it's good, but it's also not so good. In some ways. It's good because we know that high quality scientists and investigators are not going to be associated with a low quality journal. But on the other hand, too, I think sometimes you may find some journals don't necessarily have a ton of high quality individuals or well-established researchers or investigators on their editorial board.
And the reason for that is and I one of the things I appreciate about some journals is that they assigned their editorial board members based on service to the journal. So just because you're a big shot doesn't mean that you get automatically get handed a position on the editorial board. And I truly believe that editorial board members must serve the journal.
That's one of the functions of being an editorial board member. It's not these are not honorary positions. So just because you see more junior people on an editorial board does not necessarily mean that this is a low quality journal. It may mean that these are the people who are working the hardest and quite frankly, in my opinion, deserve to be the ones on the editorial board.
That comment is getting round of applause and approval. Britain's question going back to the financial compensation, she asks, would it really be financial compensation or some other incentive, such as a discount on Article processing charges, planting trees or something else? Luca, what do you think about that? MHM Yeah. I mean I like when they offer me like discounted fee for example for publishing new paper.
So I do appreciate that. And again, I'm not that bolder in terms of, you know, getting paid for a review or for publishing the so you know, I will look at them also other form of compensation like CPD or other stuff. Yeah so Yeah. Really? Yeah. Karina well, for me that's a bit difficult because then you have to publish again in that journal, right?
So the easiest and most fair is just that you compensate the editor as a person instead of giving other ways to just do I think trees would definitely be a valid alternative, though. Yeah, planting trees. Sure, I'd like that. Yeah yeah, I completely agree with Karina. So if it's paid into a research budget at the university, then you can choose where to spend that on your academic work.
OK do you agree? Yeah, I completely agree with the others. And again, a financial incentive is a financial incentive, whether it's money that's going directly to me or somehow getting indirectly funneled to me. At the end of the day, it's low on the priority list in terms of why I do any of this. Yeah now, Karina, do you peer review of what is your experience?
How do you deal with the requests that you get? Yes, of course. Peer review. I actually really enjoy it. I tend to choose the offers based on how close they are to actually my research field. So if it's something rather remote, I tend not to agree or accept this offers because I also don't feel like I would be the best expert in judging the quality of the work and also the topics that if they are related to my work, they also help understanding the science and the progress and the thought process of the whole field.
So I definitely do peer review. I of course, one factor is time depends on if there are seven crazy deadlines next week, then I of course wouldn't reject as well. But usually it's quite preprint that I accept the offers. Roughly how frequently? How many papers would you peer review in a month? In a month? One, maybe one or two months.
That would be more. More realistic. Yeah OK. Well, she. Yeah so similar experience. Sabrina so I work in statistics, as I said. So I get a lot of peer review requests both for statistics papers but also for applied empirical papers.
I need someone to review the methods part. So I get a lot of review requests, I'd say. I would say similar to Katrina, I probably do between one and two a month. I try to scale it based on how many papers I submit in a year or in the past year. So I try to if I submit to a journal, I will try to say yes to the next two or three review requests I get from that journal because I think that's kind of fair.
You at least evening out the time that gets spent on review with two or three people to review your paper. Yeah I try to pick them based on like the subject area being interesting or if it's a particularly niche topic. And I think there really are not that many other people that can review this because it's some very specific statistical thing.
Then I will also say yes, and also a lot of it, to be honest, is partially like a kind of peer pressure situation where if the editor personally, you can only say no so many times before you feel like, OK, well, it's a want to be useful apart from like also wanting to contribute back to the field and look at interesting stuff and kind of play an important role of quality control that you uniquely can do for certain topics.
So Yeah. Luka Yeah. So it really did. So to be honest, there were periods in which there was more free and there was reviewing probably one and paper a week and others very busy in which I, you know, I, I know that I spectator. So that's why I usually refuse in these cases.
So and, and again, so I tend to do this reviewing basically during the weekend. So so I tried to plan that in advance. And of course, if the paper is not my area of expertise, I don't feel in the position to accept it because I'm not offering the best quality review that paper could get. So at the moment, I'm just really accepting those paper that review that feed to in my area of expertise and just to offer the best peer reviewed method.
OK, Ahmed, I know you've just given a talk about this. Can you tell us what you said? Oh, I mean, that talk actually was scheduled for half an hour and it went over not actually just because of my talk, but with all the discussion that we had afterwards. I mean, there's a lot of factors that go into how to be a good reviewer. But in terms of how I choose or how I have historically chosen, what journals to review for, when I thought when I think about this, I think about this in terms of two phases of my career.
So I think by now you have a good sense of what at least my motivations are for doing this. And so early on in my career, I accepted any invitation to review because I wanted to contribute, I wanted to get involved, and I wanted to just get it gain experience. And I should qualify that statement by saying I accepted any review invitation that I felt that I had the expertise to actually do a fair review for it.
Because I think as a reviewer, you also have to remember, and this is one of the points I raised yesterday, was that the actually one step further step back, I will tell you, I actually I began my talk by saying, I can give this talk in 30 seconds. And basically the way to be a good reviewer is to behave in a way that you would want others to behave for your paper and do and review your paper.
So I want to be able to give an author who has spent their time and energy creating this work, justice for their paper and to give them a fair, reasonable but still scientifically rigorous review. So early on, if I had the expertise to do the review, I accepted everything because it helped me gain that experience because I knew this was an area that I was interested in for all the reasons that I've already described.
As time goes on and I've gotten busier and now I have to be a little bit more choosy about what I do in order to be able to balance all of my responsibilities. I pick journals based on primarily the fact that they are in my field. That is a way of me actually keeping up with the literature because I actually find that when I review, it's almost the same as reading the current literature.
I mean, in fact, it's almost your reading the things that haven't not even come out yet. And so that is a way of keeping up with the literature. For me, it's a way of providing service to my field. It's a way of getting involved in my field and getting involved in those journals that over time, as we all differentiate over time, you know, those are the journals where I want to primarily that I want to primarily serve and continue to get more and more active.
And then the last thing that really that will get me to do a peer review is in part who invites me. So I think I've reviewed for you, goodness. I vaguely remember getting at least one input that you say best because you know, we know each other right and right. And I review for you precisely right. And I always start by saying I'm so sorry for because I know how busy you are, but I this I really this one I really need you on and you do it.
And I've been incredibly grateful to you for that. And I try to also return the favor to my friends. So if you send me a review invitation, I know this is coming from someone who I know I respect, who's helped me and I'm not going to. It's the same way as any other favor you would do for someone you know and respect. So I that's, I think, another factor. And I always tell younger young editors or associate editors, you know, having that personal connection helps with getting reviewers to.
Absolutely right. We've got some interesting questions about this. Britain is asking, do early career researchers get any training on reviewing these days? Are there trainings available on what is needed to properly review a paper? Now, Ahmad, I know, was giving a training at a meeting yesterday. Was it or this morning?
Yes, yesterday afternoon. Right and I've been at several meetings where there have been such trainings and they are very valuable. But what training, carina, have you had to review? Has anybody taught you how to do it? Well, only the bad experiences of reviewers of my papers. So actual empirical exactly what Ahmed said. Review as if you wanted your paper to be reviewed.
That's actually my basic principle. I tried to be thorough and very respectful and with the best intentions to increase the quality of the story to the best of my understanding. And yeah, but for sure, at least in immuno-oncology events or such, I, I go to them quite frequently and I must say I haven't really come across such workshops or lectures where people would talk about how to be a better reviewer.
So I think that's definitely a timely thing. Oshie yeah, no formal training. So like many things I learned from my supervisor so early on in my PHD, which you would get invited to review a paper which was similar to something I was working on. We would review it together once or twice, so we both like write, review and combine it at the end and kind of learn from that what was at least acceptable to her.
So that's what I based my reviews on also like how I would like to be reviewed and she did that. Luka yeah, so similar experience, to be honest. I formally attended one course at the University College London. That was during my PhD and that I found quite useful, to be honest, as an introduction, as a peer reviewer. And then, of course during my PhD I started reviewing a few papers with my supervisor and this has helped me in just correcting my direction.
So what point, what to look up in the paper and what should be corrected. So Yeah. So I think yeah, you build your experience well reviewing papers and also when getting reviews from other so they can write sometimes good points that you would never look at otherwise. Yeah, I think seeing the other reviewer's comments is often very helpful.
And definitely and has valuable to go through. We've got a couple of interesting questions. One, what strategy and tools do you rely on during your reviewing process and associated with that? Another one, have you started using any AI powered tools for literature review? If so, which ones? Anyone would like to comment on tools that they use.
And I. No nobody's used AI. Is that right? I haven't. No and any. Any other tools that you use for literature reviewing other than pub method and scope and things like that? Scopus you know, in my experience, and I don't know if you found the same or the others have found the same to be true as well.
But at least for biomedical literature, I generally can find the information that I need with a relatively quick PubMed search. I think one of the factors that I think sometimes turns people off from getting into peer review or even doing a literature search, which I think is such a critical part of the peer review. I was talking to a colleague at this conference a couple of days ago, and he told me about a systematic review with meta analysis on a topic that was published in the same journal, on the same topic about one year apart, and there virtually identical.
And this is a failure of reviewers to simply just not do a literature search. And I think the worry sometimes for the reviewers is, oh, my gosh, I'm going too. Now, I have to do an hour long literature search like I would do for my own research project. And it's really not that complicated. I mean, I generally if there's something that's already been done in this area, I just put in the keywords for that topic.
And usually in the first page or two of pubmed, which takes me about 10 seconds to sort of look at can get a sense of whether this has been published on before. And then I'll look up the senior author or maybe the first author in PubMed as well to see if they've done something similar or what their work is and if there's any similar work out there. And I think it doesn't take that long. That's what I do.
And I would encourage anyone who is doing peer review not to worry about, oh, I have to spend 5 hours doing a literature search to find every possible. No, as if there's a big paper out there that's in similar journals, you will probably find it in the first page or two of a PubMed said if you do put in reasonable keywords and there are some ad hoc concrete. So that's why I also choose mostly papers that are in my field because I feel comfortable and confident about what I know of the current research and the state of the art.
So I basically save time on this part of peer review. But I want to mention about searching for the last author or the first author of the paper. This would of course, work in most cases, but not in journals that actually do double blind reviews, right? Yeah I think that, of course, is true. Yes, that's a good point. Yes I sometimes review for journals where there are little things you can press and it will show you the current site, similar articles, the first 500 similar articles and will show you what the authors have published recently and that's extremely helpful.
So I like reviewing for those journals that have that automated system. And if I can quickly answer about the I tools as far as I've heard and I've attended as well, a few lectures on AI tools. So using AI tools merely to get yourself acquainted with the ballpark of a new topic, I think, is great. But then to really qualitatively base your opinion and your decision on what the AI will give you.
As far as I know, this is actually not appropriate yet because the I can generate things that actually don't exist in the literature with very believable tone. So Thanks. Yes, it makes up references that look like real references. So but I do I do have a colleague who told me last week that he used chat GPT in order to edit a paragraph of a review that he thought came across a bit too harsh.
So to rewrite it in slightly polite terms, I haven't tried that myself yet, but that's about as useful as they are right now. OK now I have a nice question here from Elaine Stott. What one thing do you wish that publishers or journals would do to make the process of publishing an article better? Anyone with an idea that they'd like to come forward with first. Yeah, if I can take that.
What I appreciated from publisher in the past is actually getting feedback during the process. When you send the paper and just doing the review process and doing the publishing process, giving it a time or just to send in feedback. So because sometimes I had actually to email back, the publisher had some problems in that. So I think having feedback from them during the whole process will definitely would improve the author's experience.
I would say at least, it's my point of view and what I found in my experience that will be useful. OK, Ahmed. Glennis was the question for publishing in the journal or reviewing for the journal. I think it's either. It's something that you would like the publisher or the journal to do to make publishing academic papers easier.
Bottom line is ease of use. If it takes me an hour to upload a manuscript that will definitely weigh on my mind when I'm making a choice between which journal to upload and to submit to or not. And this and everyone here has experienced this. Some journals make you break the manuscript into like 20 different pieces and upload one each one separately, loading the author information in ways that take forever.
I mean, it's and that if you have two journals that are very similar in terms of reputation, readership, everything being the same, and this one takes you about two minutes to submit and this one takes you 30 minutes or an hour. It's very clear which one you're going to choose. So and I think that's the same for reviewing as well, where if you have to jump through lots of hoops, I think especially true for reviewing where we're actually giving our time and we're doing this as a service and then our life has made that much more difficult with things, inefficiencies that don't really need to be there.
I think it's ease of use. That for me is number one. I would absolutely agree with that, Karina. I also absolutely agree with what was said, and I just wanted to supplement that for me as a researcher, one of the biggest fears is being scooped. And, you know, in this current highly competitive environment, this is a very, very plausible scenario. And what I think is the big fear actually is definition by the journal that even during the revision process and even after accepting the paper, it can still be rejected just because somebody else had a paper or a similar paper published, you know, two days before.
And I think this is something very unfair to the researchers. And I don't think that diminishes the quality of the journal. If they publish in almost the same timeline as similar paper, it just makes the science stronger. That was my thing. Carina I've actually never I have never heard that policy. To me, that is a terrible that it is a horrible policy. And I personally would I mean, I again, I did my PhD in immunology.
I was publishing in immunology journals. Now BI Publisher more in EFT allergy journals. I've never heard a policy by a journal that they could reject your paper after it's been accepted because someone publishes on it while your paper is being processed. To me that is AI don't it's getting on towards the end of unethical practice from my standpoint to do that.
I mean it's a clear statement and it's usually the very, very high impact journals that have that. And I think it's one of the business cases that they try to ensure that they are the best and the most current state of the art articles. Right so I think that's maybe one negative aspect of the for profit driven publishing. But if the timing for your public years, your article getting published is in part determined by them.
It's hard. I mean, I'm so against that. I would never be a part of anything like that you're asking how we choose, which journals we review for and things like that. That's the practice that I would be dead set against. I think that's very unfair to authors, very unfair. And the fear that Karina feels when submitting a paper to that journal researchers should not have to deal with.
That is a researcher should never have to deal with that. That's just unfair. Well said. Well, she was. What's your view. Yeah, I actually I also never heard of this one, but mainly one of the things I think about is the sphere speed at which peer review gets turned around. And I can expect the feedback I see, like the time between submitting to a journal and even when something is accepted.
And, you know, there's not like four rounds of review going on. The time until I see that actually published in a journal is sometimes a horrifyingly long and it can be because of peer review. Even when the peer review is in the process of copy, editing is usually a living nightmare of copy editors just changing things Willy nilly, ruining figure layouts and equations. So quality of copy editing on a very superficial level would be highly appreciated.
In any journal I'm yet to find one that I would say is like acceptable. So if I could, if someone has some recommendations, they're happy to hear it because it's part of my job I don't like. OK let's move on. We have a question from anchor Pushkar. What is your view on open access and do you feel you're getting enough support from your institution to publish open access?
Are you aware of other sources of funding? Do you ask for open access funding when you're submitting a grant application right at the beginning? Oh, because. Oh, go, go, go. Yeah, because I work in the Netherlands, which I think is not through for anybody else here. And we have a strong push for publishing open access.
So there are a lot of agreements that actually the Dutch system of universities makes with publishers kind of on a collective basis about publishing fees and open access fees and what's covered and what's not. My University has, in addition to this, an open access fund that you can apply for, which will cover open access fees as long as the journals are registered in like a registry of open access journals, which makes sure that they're not predatory journals and they adhere to certain practices.
So I'm massively pro open access and it's becoming more and more a huge deciding factor for me about where to submit a journal, if it's open access, and whether the Dutch government has already made an agreement with that publisher to cover costs or whether I have to go and search for funding for this, which is what I really don't want to spend my time doing, as well as like believing strongly that all science should be open and accessible to everybody which supports core belief.
Yes Switzerland, yes. But something has gone, maybe even a step a bit further. It is a state requirement that you have to publish open access if you have government funding. And there are also additional funds or project funds that you can apply for to publish open access. But that's a completely eligible cost within your grant proposal also. Do you have to publish open data as well?
Do you think that should be mandatory? In Switzerland. No, you don't have to. But it's highly encouraged to share data and you know, up to a point that it doesn't jeopardize your intellectual property. Yeah, but Yeah. So once that is settled, then it is actually also a requirement then to share the data openly.
Ahmed what do you think about open access? I mean, I certainly have no moral objection to it. And quite the opposite. I think the more that we make science open access, the more that everyone is able to take advantage and gain that knowledge. For us, we don't have dedicated funds or grants that we can apply for, specifically for open access. You can incorporate it into a grant application.
But if you don't have that funding through a grant application, then our investigators are literally paying out of pocket from their own salaries or whatever to publish open access, which is a tough ask. It's a tough ask, especially when there's journals of similar quality that don't charge investigators. I do see the trend overall moving towards open access, but.
In a funded way. So for example, we see publishing houses again, similar to what was described, having contracts with universities where instead of just selling a subscription to the University for access to publish articles, the subscription is not just for that but also free open access publishing as well. So we have that with that agreement at the University of Cincinnati with some publishers where if a paper gets accepted, you can opt to publish it open access at no fee to you because of the agreement that's between the University and the publisher.
Yeah Yeah. Luca, what's your feeling? Yeah, I mean, I do support open, open access, and I do like it for many reasons. So I think review process is also sometimes quicker. I mean, I found quicker in some journals offering open access and it's also publishing more quickly when accepted. And then there are many, many cons of open access.
The Europe paper is basically made, made freely available in on internet and in the scientific community for free. You can also share in your social platform and this will increase the visibility of your paper. So when I choose a journal, to be honest, I do consider these options as well. And also as affiliation. I got an affiliation at University. We got an agreement with thousands of journals and to be honest, I feel very, very lucky on this side.
So if there is an option that is paid from my university, I do choose the option as an open access. So that will be something that I consider definitely. That makes very good sense. I want to ask you something else. What about language? Has it been a problem for you having to write papers in english? Yeah she and a Korean too.
But particularly Luka. I think so. Yes, definitely. I'm a non-native speaker, so you could have picked up. So I definitely think that having a good level of written English is crucial for the level of paper you you're writing, and consequently so for its final acceptance in the journal.
And so I find it quite difficult, to be honest when I started and you know, we in the previous University where I was, we were actually having someone writing the English for us. And so that was a good learning point. But yeah, so I also, you know, from a reviewer experience, I also review the papers that unfortunately that have, in my opinion, a good level of English and, but had good data.
So yeah, so it's difficult because sometimes your message that doesn't come across as it should be and you know, and then that's not fair. So that's why I think it's quite important also for the level overall of the level of quality of the paper you are you're basically submitting. Yeah, I think it's also sometimes a problem for a reviewing. I don't know how you feel about this, but I sometimes review papers, quite good content, but very badly expressed.
And we're told as reviewers not to correct the English very much, but to go for the scientific content. But sometimes the language just needs a rewrite that yeah, yeah, I agree with you and it's what happened. So, you know, good data. I was looking at the table, great work, but the, the message wasn't coming across properly and. Yeah so yeah, that's the point indeed. You know, I think this is where the tools will now more and more use ability.
I think that's right. Mohamed El Afghani has said why is there no investment from institutions, organizations, publishers to have a massive academic large language model to help all. And maybe that's the future. I don't know yet. I think it might well be helpful to have language auto corrected.
Except that. The current language I is using is slightly you said it was direct. I think it's slightly archaic stuff I've seen and very repetitive. But it will get better, no doubt. And I wanted to ask you as well about how you feel about support from journalists, not necessarily financial.
But things like certificates, continuing professional development, accreditation, lists of top reviewers. Do you like that idea of getting some feedback, getting some academic type of reward? Ahmed, what about you? I think it's certainly it certainly doesn't hurt. And I think it is it's one of those small things that can be done, but it makes you feel good as a reviewer.
You know, I don't at least for us, I don't know that a certificate necessarily is going to help me advance career wise, and I'm probably not going to hang them on the wall. Some of them I keep. But but I will tell you, it's just to me, it's like just getting a random compliment from someone who you work with. And, you know, some days someone just pulls you aside, say thank you for the work that you do, and I just makes you feel really good.
And then it just picks you back up and you're like, ready to go. And I think it's one of those small things that I think it just it helps from that standpoint more than anything else. Do the rest of you get contact education hours accredited for reviewing manuscripts? Can you do that? Shane you're not.
You're shaking your head. You can't. Karina, do you get credit? Depend on the channel, though, whether they do or do not grant them. What are some definitely offer that, but some not. But definitely to answer your question, I do appreciate the journals. Yeah, great.
Somehow gratifying the reviewers. Again, we were speaking about the financial reimbursement, but I think even certificates or points that you can review or see in your orcid profile are very helpful. And the other aspect, however, is that the publishers can give you this, but then the know, the grant evaluation committees should also take that as an additional evaluation criterion.
So that would be from both parts beneficial for their researcher to participate. Yeah speaking of the continuing medical education part that you mentioned, I personally have historically never asked for CME credit for doing reviews. But I will say from the editorial side, we have received lots of positive feedback from reviewers for that as a reward for what they do.
So I think there are a lot of individuals who are very interested in taking advantage of that for CME and it's helpful. Now luka, do you claim see any continuing medical education points for reviewing? Well, if I receive when reviewing the paper, I definitely save them and then I give to my institution during my annual appraisal, which is like a talk we do every, every year, and it's just as a recognition.
Otherwise I'm not asking. So if there's something that they send to me, I'll save it. Otherwise I'm not asking for that problem. Well, I should. Yes, I think should. One other thing that's come in fairly recently are preprints. Publication of preprints that have not been fully peer reviewed.
What is your opinion on those? It's not with you wishing. Yeah, very positive. So I pre-print all of my papers usually the moment I submit them. Usually I have asked many people for feedback before I submit paper. So I feel like I have I have kind of like some consensus that what I'm writing is at least in the sphere of being correct or reasonable.
But I don't often work with empirical data, so I don't necessarily publish a lot of novel empirical studies where I'm afraid of getting scooped. So maybe my observation is slightly different for other people there, but BI Publisher everything as preprints and I'm also protected by, I think, Dutch law that even if this is accepted in a journal, I can still have the preprint non journal formatted version on a preprint server and I can, I can put the journal formatted version of after I think like nine months there.
So I think it's also like balancing the open access debate. So the information is out there for whoever wants to find it very easily. It's like index in Google that's on my Google Scholar page and you don't have to have access to journals to see this. And I think that's a positive thing for the scientific community. Definitely very broad.
Preprints OK, carina, do you do that? I also do that. Then I think that's maybe partially revealing, relieving the fear of being scooped, because then you get your thing out, it's there, it's this data. And it's on. So and yeah, I actually publish it when, when the story is ready and then we're still thinking where to submit even.
And usually I'm glad to see that most journals have no objections of having the study already out as a preprint. OK if they do get a red flag from me with a journal, by the way. Yeah OK. So, Yeah. OK so interesting, Glenn, I personally don't use preprint servers just because for what I do, the risk of getting scooped is very low, and that's the only reason.
But I think it's a great tool and resource for investigators who are in more competitive fields, who need to make sure that their work, their hard work. Does it get scooped? Yeah Yeah. Luka Yeah. I never used a printer, so probably I'm not. I'm not familiar with the process, to be honest. Nothing against that.
But I don't know. I've got a different, slightly different opinion. I don't really like that, to be honest, because sometimes papers, you know, like once published could be slightly different from your print conclusion may be different analysis that some reviewers, they ask for more analysis to be done, or then your final result could be slightly different.
So that's my opinion preprints. Maybe you disagree with that. I'm sure you disagree with that. Yeah, that's why I don't. It's something that I'm not using. Yeah well, I think you're right. Most people have a versioning system, so where you site specific versions. And I think that I think that's actually a positive thing, that this process is completely transparent.
Right like you tried one analysis and you got a different conclusion and then you try a different analysis and something new was there. Sometimes this information doesn't make it into like a final printed version because you have word limits or some limits. I think like being open about these things as I'm not to convince you or anything like that, but.
No, no, no. I think I see this as a benefit. But it's funny enough that the exact thing that I think is a benefit in my eyes. Yeah and actually, when the paper gets accepted you get the link to the, to the peer reviewed version to get, you know, on the top of your preprint title. So that's allows anyone to immediately see what was then the difference between the preprint and the final accepted.
That that is very true and very good. That's brilliant. Do something that I didn't know. Yeah and that's why I said I'm not very familiar with the process. So yeah, it's interesting. No, I think it is. But I think it relates very much more to the urgent scientific discoveries which Karina or nosheen are working on probably, and the rest of us are less involved with.
We don't have much time left at all. But if you could think of a reward system that you would all like, what would you do for publishing? If you wanted to advise a publisher to make you happy, what would you what would you say? What would you like them to do for you as a scientist, as a Writer of papers, and as a peer reviewer? Do you have any ideas?
Many messages say. Yeah Yeah. If the reviewer. So if the editor sees the reviews. And if one of those reviews is really disrespectful and is not really on the point that this reviewer is maybe barred from being a reviewer ever again and actually get some feedback because I've got I've gotten such reviews that I'm like thinking that really in what world are we living?
So I think the editor's task would be very helpful if they would assess the quality of the reviews as well based on I think that's a good point. They've seen so many reviews so they can write such things. Yeah, Yeah. We do that at frontiers. We can rate the reviews. Anyone else want to make a final point about what they would like?
Any burning issues? I've seen some new journals offer, like even beyond editorial member compensation, peer review compensation. I think that this is an interesting idea to explore. I think especially in the given the current situation, at least in my field, is that it's very hard to find peer reviewers and peer review takes a very long time.
So I think everybody is feeling the pressure of having to do more and more work. More and more research is being done. More and more people need to review things. It is like an interesting idea to explore for journals, this kind of broader compensation sharing models. I think they would like to see more of that.
Right, glynnis? I would say I think from the standpoint of the publisher, I don't the publisher really can get outside of if they want it to offer financial incentives for doing things. I don't think really the publisher, aside from making sure that the journal doesn't go out of business, has as much influence in terms of factors that can drive us and incentivize us to do things.
But I will say, I think. When you when I look at who I want, reviewing my papers and who I want reviewing papers for me, as an associate editor, I want the people who are motivated by the desire, again, to serve and to be doing this for the right reason to help maintain the quality and rigor of the science that's in our field. And I think part of what excites those people is the ability to get more involved in journals.
And I think this is why I really love journals that in part determine editorial board members based directly on service. Because if you are a junior person and that there's absolutely no way that you're going to get on this editorial board because this journal only takes puts big shots who don't do any work or necessarily do as much work as you on their editorial board.
And I've seen this, you know, we chuckle about it, but we've both seen this, right? So that junior individual who has the desire, the motivation there, they have the energy, the drive to do this, they're going to get turned off and that kind of quells that fire to some degree. And and they're still doing it for the right reasons. But are they going to spend the Sunday afternoon, a nice Sunday afternoon doing this peer review instead of enjoying the weather outside?
Maybe probably not. You know, maybe not. But that's why I think having these merit based systems for greater involvement in the journals is, is a fantastic system for exciting young and not just young, but at any stage investigators who really wants to do this for the right reason. And we didn't even get into some of the I think part of the problem is now there's so many journals out there historically, like I even when I was in graduate school was which was I guess it's becoming longer now, but being an editorial board member always been such an honor and being getting invited to review was such an honor, like you wouldn't pass this up.
But it's, you know, part of the reason is there's this proliferation of journals. And I think we want people doing this for the right reason and we've got to get them excited and restore that honor that's associated with doing the reviews. Good point. Any thoughts on this? Final thoughts?
Well, I definitely agree with my colleagues what has been said so far. I would probably I don't know from a publisher point of view. So probably offering like language, language check for free, for example, for those once the paper has been accepted or once for those who are already open access. So it will be something that could be appreciated probably from now that are not speaking English as native speakers.
think it could be encouraging for them. Thank you. I think we've run out of time. I apologize to people who've asked questions that we haven't managed to answer. We've had some wonderful questions. And Thank you to our audience. Thank you very much for all of you. You've given terrific answers.
I hope it's been useful to the audience. I think it has. And I'm very grateful to you for giving up your time to this initiative. And Thank you, Karina. Thank you, shean. Thank you, Ahmed. Thank you, Luca, and Thank you very much. The society of scientific publishing, scholarly publishing for letting us have this discussion.
And goodbye, everyone. Goodbye it's time to see whether this discussion was recorded and all registrants who receive a link when posted on the cesp website. You must be logged in to view the recording session. This session is included. OK Thank you.
Goodbye
Segment:0 .
Thank you and welcome to today's Ask the experts panel. We are pleased you can join our discussion with researchers. I am David Meyers, CFP education committee member and a senior lead publisher at Wolters kluwer. Before we start, I want to thank our 2023 education sponsors over care 57 1,000 we have reached for your support.
A few housekeeping items attending microphones have been muted automatically. So please use the Q&A panel to end questions from the panelists agenda. Questions you have participated. You can also use the chair to communicate with each other or organizers. Those captions have enabled you can do captions by selecting the More option on your screen and choosing show captions.
This one hour session will be recorded and available to view in a few days. A quick note on xrp's code of conduct. In today's meeting we are committed to diversity, equity and providing an inclusive meeting environment, fostering open dialogue, free of harassment, discrimination and hostile conduct. We ask all participants whether speaking or chat, consider and debate relevant viewpoints in an orderly, respectful and fair manner.
It's now my pleasure to introduce our moderator, Dr. glennis Staton. Dr. scatting is an honorary consultant physician for the Royal National Hospital in London and honorary associate professor in Division of immunity and infection at University College London. Her research interests include rhinitis and its comorbidities, but the asthma and rhinosinusitis aspirin, hypersensitivity and sublingual immunotherapy.
Dr. scatting is heavily involved in publishing society activities, especially chief editor for the radiology section of frontiers and allergy board, member at leaf rhinitis in euphoria. And as president of the British Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and overview. Dr. Staton. David, Thank you very much indeed. Hello, everyone and welcome to the webinar.
I'd like all our panelists to introduce themselves in turn telling us about where they are in their academic careers. And let's start with the Lettie. Karina, please, can you tell us about yourself? Hello, everybody. My name is Karina selenium. I am a pi, a group leader at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.
I am based in Zurich. It's a late afternoon for me. Ahmed, could you tell us about yourself? Sure I am an associate professor of otolaryngology at the University of Cincinnati in the USA. I am the division chief for radiology, allergy and anterior skull based surgery in our department and heavily involved in research and also editing, publishing multiple editorial boards and serve as associate editor on three for three journals in our field.
Fantastic Luke pantoliano. Hi, everybody. I'm Luke brandolino, and I'm a clinical fellow at the real national EMT in London. I'm also a PhD student at the University College London. And my specific area of interest is radiology and facial plastics. And my research activity is mainly now focusing on loss of sense of smell in upper respiratory tract diseases, measurements of nasal airflow, nasal surgery and vasculitis affecting the nose and sinuses.
Thank you and wishing. Yeah hi, I'm Ashley Ryan. I'm a postdoctoral researcher at the Department of methodology and statistics at Utrecht University. Actually, next week I will serve a new position as an assistant professor in the Department of data science and biostatistics in the Medical Center here. And yeah, my research focuses on developing and applying causal inference and time series analysis techniques in social and behavioral science settings.
Pregnant I'd like to start by asking you all about editorial boards and whether you serve on them. Now, Ahmed, you said you did, so let's hear which ones you serve on and why. So I am currently the associate editor for radiology for international forum of Allergy and radiology and also an open access journal called laryngoscope investigative anthology.
I am on the editorial board also of clinical otolaryngology, European archives of renal biology, and also on the editorial board of otolaryngology-head neck surgery, which is the Journal of the American Academy of Otolaryngology. I've been on other editorial boards in the past as well. The most recent one I can think of was the annals of allergy, asthma and immunology, which was a fantastic board to be on.
So those are the big ones, I would say, and most recent ones. That's a lot of work. It is. How do you do it? I enjoy it. Oh, good. Do you do it in your spare time? Yeah I mean, you mean as opposed to during the workday?
Yeah Yeah. You know, I, I'm a busy researcher. You know, I didn't say it exactly, but I'm heavily involved in clinical research and outcomes research related to chronic rhinosinusitis. I'm actually also a very busy clinician, and then I do these things also on top of all of that. And I, I have over time just between all of my interests and what I do have been forced to be very efficient with my time.
And, and so I somehow managed to get it all done. Of course, a lot of it leaks into the after hours and the weekends, but. You know, that's just do it when you have to do it. That's amazing. We have a nice comment in the chat. It seems that you have more than 24 hours. In your day. No you know, I honestly think with titles and all these things aside, I think actually what I. What I'm proudest of, I think, is just being able to manage and handle all of those.
And I think when you're sort of forced to do those things, you just learn how to become efficient with your time. So it's very kind of him to say that. But I think just have to we find ways of we talk about work life integration and harmony these days instead of work life balance. And because I do what I love, it's really not that big of a deal for me. OK, carina, tell us about yourself.
Editorial boards. Yes I have taken part in an editorial board as a guest associate editor in frontiers, and I was invited to be one to manage one research topic, which was related to my direct work, actually what we're studying in oncology topic. That was a wonderful experience, I must say, getting to know the authors and other editors. Yeah, it's very positive.
Do you do editorial boards? No, I'm not actually on any editorial boards. If not, why not? What's are you too busy? Are you not interested? Largely, I haven't been invited necessarily by anybody, but I also haven't sort this out yet. I think this is something. Yeah, to be honest, at this point in my career, it seemed like a bit of a time drain.
I wanted to focus on other things, but yeah, I notice more and more as I progress. This is the type of thing that grant agencies look for in applications. This type of experience is something I kind of started to orient myself towards right now. OK, well, if there's anyone listening with a suitable editorial board, they might be coming to find you soon.
And Luca, tell us your experience. Yeah, well, at the moment I'm not a member of any editorial board. And although I've been invited in the past, sadly, I had to reject those offers because I didn't have enough time. And this is something that definitely I will consider in the future. But what I found quite difficult as a clinician was basically to find the right time, some spare time in my weekly schedule, just to combine my clinical activities with possible editorial workload.
So at that stage, at this stage, I'm trying to prioritize my, my clinical activities, but it's something that's in the future. Definitely, I will think about finding some spare time to dedicate to some editorial board activities. Yeah now I think for most of us these activities are largely unpaid. But how would you feel if the editorial boards suggested payment for your work?
Would it make any difference to you? It sure it's better, right? I wouldn't turn down money. Right Yeah. I mean, I think I was thinking about this and I think there's always a we always do these things for a reason. And part of it is actually, I think, a sense of duty to especially your field and to science in general as investigators.
A lot of us, I think as researchers feel that way, but especially as you get busier and busier and you're already providing a lot of service to your field there, there needs to be some maybe additional motivation to do some of these things and to take up more of your time, especially now you have family and things like that, that you have to also manage. It doesn't have to be money. And like you said, I mean, actually, all of the things that I do right now, none of them am I getting paid for.
But but certainly if the journals decided to start paying me one day, I wouldn't turn it down. But I do get some personal things out of participating in those journals, some benefits, for example, getting involved in my field, getting involved in the societies that the journals are associated with. So there are some personal benefits. I mean, nothing monetary or anything like that, but things that give me satisfaction, career satisfaction, personal satisfaction from being involved in those journals.
Yeah do any of the rest of you think that payment might make a difference to your willingness to serve any views? Washington would it make a difference to you? Oh, I don't necessarily think so. But I think I would like to echo what Ahmed said. It's not like the main reason why you would do something like this, but I think it might tip the balance a little bit in favor of one journal over another.
I would not even think of it as paper. It's more like compensation for the fact that you are doing a lot of labor in your free time is not exactly something you would invoice to somebody you are getting paid to do work for. But I mean, if you could hire, you could add on an extra year for research assistants because of all of this time you put in. I think that would be like even like a token level of compensation would be like attractive, but it wouldn't be the deciding factor for me.
Yeah any comments, karina? Would it make a difference to you? You agree with both? Both? Luka. Yeah, I definitely agree with both. Although I'm not in any editorial board, so it could be quite easy for me to say my position. But an alternative to the payment sometimes is not the payment itself.
The money could be just for the employer, either the hospital, the university, just to allocate a protected slot in your weekly timetable that you could spend on your reviewing papers or just your editorial meeting or other editorial commitments. So something that is recognized and you actually have some safe and allocated and safe time just to spend on that, that could be an option without you spending time during your weekends.
Yeah, we have a couple of questions in the chat about this. Elaine Stott has asked us when deciding whether to join an editorial board or not. Does it matter to you whether the journal publisher is commercial or not for profit? Who would like to answer that? Yeah I think for me it would make a difference.
I think when looking at doing that type of paper for a journal, I think there are like two factors which would be important to me. One is like on a very surface level, like the prestige and reputation of the journal, because on the surface level this is going to further your career more than less prestigious journals, but also you get to actually interact with authors and work of high quality generally.
But the other factor is, of course, whether this is for profit or not. So ideally you would like a very prestigious journal with a great reputation that's completely not for profit, but unfortunately don't necessarily exist that much. So if that were to exist, that would be what I would pick. But somehow you have to pay this prestige for not for profit. Think for me. Yeah Yeah.
Karina, what about you? Yeah, I would also agree with ocean, but I also realized that we just spoke about getting paid and then how would a general non-for-profit be able to then handle all of this? So yeah, for me, I think that would not matter too much, I would say. OK, Ahmed, does it matter to you? Whether it's a not for profit journal, it's not it's not a huge factor.
And honestly, it hasn't been something that has run through my mind or not for me. I'm what gets me excited about being active in these journals is that there are journals of my field and it's a way of contributing to my field. And it's also I think one of the reasons why, as we were talking about earlier, why it's so important to be a peer reviewer and being on an editorial board, is that to a higher degree and then so forth, moving up the chain.
Why this is so important is that it's our responsibilities to maintain a certain level of quality and rigor in the science that goes into our field. And when you're involved in peer review, that's you're participating in that process. And I think that's why I always say, you know what? Like the talk I gave yesterday, what I say, this is our duty to be involved. And that's what motivates me.
And, you know, if by chance, you know, the journals of our field are run by for profit publishers or something like that, I mean, the fact of the matter is publishing has a cost and there is a business side to all of this. I'm not really that involved in it. I see bits and pieces of it as an associate editor. But but there's costs associated with publishing. And if some of these journals have found that the best way of maintaining long term stability is to be part of a for profit publishing house, you know, I think those are bigger discussions, but that at the level of doing peer reviews, being on an editorial board, being an associate editor or even an editor, I don't think would play a huge factor.
And currently doesn't for me in terms of my decisions to participate. And I'll only add the caveat that if by chance, if I were to find out that one of these publishing houses was predatory or something like that or had like unethical practices, that would make a big difference to me. But but just as a matter of for profit or not for profit, that's not the major driver for me.
And I sort of describe what the major drivers are for me. Thank you, Luka. How do you feel? Yeah, I definitely agree with the others, so it wouldn't matter to me if it is a profit or non-profit. I would probably look at other factors like the quality of the journals or just the other members of editorial board. Of the editorial board look at possible collaborations and prestige of the journal.
So I would look at factors probably turn non-profit in just deciding to join the editorial board or not. OK we have another relevant question from Britta Mueller. Now could I make one just comment in response related to what? Something that Luka said and just as a Warning that I would give to some. So one of the things that Luka said was he would look at maybe who's on the editorial board of that journal.
And I think that's actually it's good, but it's also not so good. In some ways. It's good because we know that high quality scientists and investigators are not going to be associated with a low quality journal. But on the other hand, too, I think sometimes you may find some journals don't necessarily have a ton of high quality individuals or well-established researchers or investigators on their editorial board.
And the reason for that is and I one of the things I appreciate about some journals is that they assigned their editorial board members based on service to the journal. So just because you're a big shot doesn't mean that you get automatically get handed a position on the editorial board. And I truly believe that editorial board members must serve the journal.
That's one of the functions of being an editorial board member. It's not these are not honorary positions. So just because you see more junior people on an editorial board does not necessarily mean that this is a low quality journal. It may mean that these are the people who are working the hardest and quite frankly, in my opinion, deserve to be the ones on the editorial board.
That comment is getting round of applause and approval. Britain's question going back to the financial compensation, she asks, would it really be financial compensation or some other incentive, such as a discount on Article processing charges, planting trees or something else? Luca, what do you think about that? MHM Yeah. I mean I like when they offer me like discounted fee for example for publishing new paper.
So I do appreciate that. And again, I'm not that bolder in terms of, you know, getting paid for a review or for publishing the so you know, I will look at them also other form of compensation like CPD or other stuff. Yeah so Yeah. Really? Yeah. Karina well, for me that's a bit difficult because then you have to publish again in that journal, right?
So the easiest and most fair is just that you compensate the editor as a person instead of giving other ways to just do I think trees would definitely be a valid alternative, though. Yeah, planting trees. Sure, I'd like that. Yeah yeah, I completely agree with Karina. So if it's paid into a research budget at the university, then you can choose where to spend that on your academic work.
OK do you agree? Yeah, I completely agree with the others. And again, a financial incentive is a financial incentive, whether it's money that's going directly to me or somehow getting indirectly funneled to me. At the end of the day, it's low on the priority list in terms of why I do any of this. Yeah now, Karina, do you peer review of what is your experience?
How do you deal with the requests that you get? Yes, of course. Peer review. I actually really enjoy it. I tend to choose the offers based on how close they are to actually my research field. So if it's something rather remote, I tend not to agree or accept this offers because I also don't feel like I would be the best expert in judging the quality of the work and also the topics that if they are related to my work, they also help understanding the science and the progress and the thought process of the whole field.
So I definitely do peer review. I of course, one factor is time depends on if there are seven crazy deadlines next week, then I of course wouldn't reject as well. But usually it's quite preprint that I accept the offers. Roughly how frequently? How many papers would you peer review in a month? In a month? One, maybe one or two months.
That would be more. More realistic. Yeah OK. Well, she. Yeah so similar experience. Sabrina so I work in statistics, as I said. So I get a lot of peer review requests both for statistics papers but also for applied empirical papers.
I need someone to review the methods part. So I get a lot of review requests, I'd say. I would say similar to Katrina, I probably do between one and two a month. I try to scale it based on how many papers I submit in a year or in the past year. So I try to if I submit to a journal, I will try to say yes to the next two or three review requests I get from that journal because I think that's kind of fair.
You at least evening out the time that gets spent on review with two or three people to review your paper. Yeah I try to pick them based on like the subject area being interesting or if it's a particularly niche topic. And I think there really are not that many other people that can review this because it's some very specific statistical thing.
Then I will also say yes, and also a lot of it, to be honest, is partially like a kind of peer pressure situation where if the editor personally, you can only say no so many times before you feel like, OK, well, it's a want to be useful apart from like also wanting to contribute back to the field and look at interesting stuff and kind of play an important role of quality control that you uniquely can do for certain topics.
So Yeah. Luka Yeah. So it really did. So to be honest, there were periods in which there was more free and there was reviewing probably one and paper a week and others very busy in which I, you know, I, I know that I spectator. So that's why I usually refuse in these cases.
So and, and again, so I tend to do this reviewing basically during the weekend. So so I tried to plan that in advance. And of course, if the paper is not my area of expertise, I don't feel in the position to accept it because I'm not offering the best quality review that paper could get. So at the moment, I'm just really accepting those paper that review that feed to in my area of expertise and just to offer the best peer reviewed method.
OK, Ahmed, I know you've just given a talk about this. Can you tell us what you said? Oh, I mean, that talk actually was scheduled for half an hour and it went over not actually just because of my talk, but with all the discussion that we had afterwards. I mean, there's a lot of factors that go into how to be a good reviewer. But in terms of how I choose or how I have historically chosen, what journals to review for, when I thought when I think about this, I think about this in terms of two phases of my career.
So I think by now you have a good sense of what at least my motivations are for doing this. And so early on in my career, I accepted any invitation to review because I wanted to contribute, I wanted to get involved, and I wanted to just get it gain experience. And I should qualify that statement by saying I accepted any review invitation that I felt that I had the expertise to actually do a fair review for it.
Because I think as a reviewer, you also have to remember, and this is one of the points I raised yesterday, was that the actually one step further step back, I will tell you, I actually I began my talk by saying, I can give this talk in 30 seconds. And basically the way to be a good reviewer is to behave in a way that you would want others to behave for your paper and do and review your paper.
So I want to be able to give an author who has spent their time and energy creating this work, justice for their paper and to give them a fair, reasonable but still scientifically rigorous review. So early on, if I had the expertise to do the review, I accepted everything because it helped me gain that experience because I knew this was an area that I was interested in for all the reasons that I've already described.
As time goes on and I've gotten busier and now I have to be a little bit more choosy about what I do in order to be able to balance all of my responsibilities. I pick journals based on primarily the fact that they are in my field. That is a way of me actually keeping up with the literature because I actually find that when I review, it's almost the same as reading the current literature.
I mean, in fact, it's almost your reading the things that haven't not even come out yet. And so that is a way of keeping up with the literature. For me, it's a way of providing service to my field. It's a way of getting involved in my field and getting involved in those journals that over time, as we all differentiate over time, you know, those are the journals where I want to primarily that I want to primarily serve and continue to get more and more active.
And then the last thing that really that will get me to do a peer review is in part who invites me. So I think I've reviewed for you, goodness. I vaguely remember getting at least one input that you say best because you know, we know each other right and right. And I review for you precisely right. And I always start by saying I'm so sorry for because I know how busy you are, but I this I really this one I really need you on and you do it.
And I've been incredibly grateful to you for that. And I try to also return the favor to my friends. So if you send me a review invitation, I know this is coming from someone who I know I respect, who's helped me and I'm not going to. It's the same way as any other favor you would do for someone you know and respect. So I that's, I think, another factor. And I always tell younger young editors or associate editors, you know, having that personal connection helps with getting reviewers to.
Absolutely right. We've got some interesting questions about this. Britain is asking, do early career researchers get any training on reviewing these days? Are there trainings available on what is needed to properly review a paper? Now, Ahmad, I know, was giving a training at a meeting yesterday. Was it or this morning?
Yes, yesterday afternoon. Right and I've been at several meetings where there have been such trainings and they are very valuable. But what training, carina, have you had to review? Has anybody taught you how to do it? Well, only the bad experiences of reviewers of my papers. So actual empirical exactly what Ahmed said. Review as if you wanted your paper to be reviewed.
That's actually my basic principle. I tried to be thorough and very respectful and with the best intentions to increase the quality of the story to the best of my understanding. And yeah, but for sure, at least in immuno-oncology events or such, I, I go to them quite frequently and I must say I haven't really come across such workshops or lectures where people would talk about how to be a better reviewer.
So I think that's definitely a timely thing. Oshie yeah, no formal training. So like many things I learned from my supervisor so early on in my PHD, which you would get invited to review a paper which was similar to something I was working on. We would review it together once or twice, so we both like write, review and combine it at the end and kind of learn from that what was at least acceptable to her.
So that's what I based my reviews on also like how I would like to be reviewed and she did that. Luka yeah, so similar experience, to be honest. I formally attended one course at the University College London. That was during my PhD and that I found quite useful, to be honest, as an introduction, as a peer reviewer. And then, of course during my PhD I started reviewing a few papers with my supervisor and this has helped me in just correcting my direction.
So what point, what to look up in the paper and what should be corrected. So Yeah. So I think yeah, you build your experience well reviewing papers and also when getting reviews from other so they can write sometimes good points that you would never look at otherwise. Yeah, I think seeing the other reviewer's comments is often very helpful.
And definitely and has valuable to go through. We've got a couple of interesting questions. One, what strategy and tools do you rely on during your reviewing process and associated with that? Another one, have you started using any AI powered tools for literature review? If so, which ones? Anyone would like to comment on tools that they use.
And I. No nobody's used AI. Is that right? I haven't. No and any. Any other tools that you use for literature reviewing other than pub method and scope and things like that? Scopus you know, in my experience, and I don't know if you found the same or the others have found the same to be true as well.
But at least for biomedical literature, I generally can find the information that I need with a relatively quick PubMed search. I think one of the factors that I think sometimes turns people off from getting into peer review or even doing a literature search, which I think is such a critical part of the peer review. I was talking to a colleague at this conference a couple of days ago, and he told me about a systematic review with meta analysis on a topic that was published in the same journal, on the same topic about one year apart, and there virtually identical.
And this is a failure of reviewers to simply just not do a literature search. And I think the worry sometimes for the reviewers is, oh, my gosh, I'm going too. Now, I have to do an hour long literature search like I would do for my own research project. And it's really not that complicated. I mean, I generally if there's something that's already been done in this area, I just put in the keywords for that topic.
And usually in the first page or two of pubmed, which takes me about 10 seconds to sort of look at can get a sense of whether this has been published on before. And then I'll look up the senior author or maybe the first author in PubMed as well to see if they've done something similar or what their work is and if there's any similar work out there. And I think it doesn't take that long. That's what I do.
And I would encourage anyone who is doing peer review not to worry about, oh, I have to spend 5 hours doing a literature search to find every possible. No, as if there's a big paper out there that's in similar journals, you will probably find it in the first page or two of a PubMed said if you do put in reasonable keywords and there are some ad hoc concrete. So that's why I also choose mostly papers that are in my field because I feel comfortable and confident about what I know of the current research and the state of the art.
So I basically save time on this part of peer review. But I want to mention about searching for the last author or the first author of the paper. This would of course, work in most cases, but not in journals that actually do double blind reviews, right? Yeah I think that, of course, is true. Yes, that's a good point. Yes I sometimes review for journals where there are little things you can press and it will show you the current site, similar articles, the first 500 similar articles and will show you what the authors have published recently and that's extremely helpful.
So I like reviewing for those journals that have that automated system. And if I can quickly answer about the I tools as far as I've heard and I've attended as well, a few lectures on AI tools. So using AI tools merely to get yourself acquainted with the ballpark of a new topic, I think, is great. But then to really qualitatively base your opinion and your decision on what the AI will give you.
As far as I know, this is actually not appropriate yet because the I can generate things that actually don't exist in the literature with very believable tone. So Thanks. Yes, it makes up references that look like real references. So but I do I do have a colleague who told me last week that he used chat GPT in order to edit a paragraph of a review that he thought came across a bit too harsh.
So to rewrite it in slightly polite terms, I haven't tried that myself yet, but that's about as useful as they are right now. OK now I have a nice question here from Elaine Stott. What one thing do you wish that publishers or journals would do to make the process of publishing an article better? Anyone with an idea that they'd like to come forward with first. Yeah, if I can take that.
What I appreciated from publisher in the past is actually getting feedback during the process. When you send the paper and just doing the review process and doing the publishing process, giving it a time or just to send in feedback. So because sometimes I had actually to email back, the publisher had some problems in that. So I think having feedback from them during the whole process will definitely would improve the author's experience.
I would say at least, it's my point of view and what I found in my experience that will be useful. OK, Ahmed. Glennis was the question for publishing in the journal or reviewing for the journal. I think it's either. It's something that you would like the publisher or the journal to do to make publishing academic papers easier.
Bottom line is ease of use. If it takes me an hour to upload a manuscript that will definitely weigh on my mind when I'm making a choice between which journal to upload and to submit to or not. And this and everyone here has experienced this. Some journals make you break the manuscript into like 20 different pieces and upload one each one separately, loading the author information in ways that take forever.
I mean, it's and that if you have two journals that are very similar in terms of reputation, readership, everything being the same, and this one takes you about two minutes to submit and this one takes you 30 minutes or an hour. It's very clear which one you're going to choose. So and I think that's the same for reviewing as well, where if you have to jump through lots of hoops, I think especially true for reviewing where we're actually giving our time and we're doing this as a service and then our life has made that much more difficult with things, inefficiencies that don't really need to be there.
I think it's ease of use. That for me is number one. I would absolutely agree with that, Karina. I also absolutely agree with what was said, and I just wanted to supplement that for me as a researcher, one of the biggest fears is being scooped. And, you know, in this current highly competitive environment, this is a very, very plausible scenario. And what I think is the big fear actually is definition by the journal that even during the revision process and even after accepting the paper, it can still be rejected just because somebody else had a paper or a similar paper published, you know, two days before.
And I think this is something very unfair to the researchers. And I don't think that diminishes the quality of the journal. If they publish in almost the same timeline as similar paper, it just makes the science stronger. That was my thing. Carina I've actually never I have never heard that policy. To me, that is a terrible that it is a horrible policy. And I personally would I mean, I again, I did my PhD in immunology.
I was publishing in immunology journals. Now BI Publisher more in EFT allergy journals. I've never heard a policy by a journal that they could reject your paper after it's been accepted because someone publishes on it while your paper is being processed. To me that is AI don't it's getting on towards the end of unethical practice from my standpoint to do that.
I mean it's a clear statement and it's usually the very, very high impact journals that have that. And I think it's one of the business cases that they try to ensure that they are the best and the most current state of the art articles. Right so I think that's maybe one negative aspect of the for profit driven publishing. But if the timing for your public years, your article getting published is in part determined by them.
It's hard. I mean, I'm so against that. I would never be a part of anything like that you're asking how we choose, which journals we review for and things like that. That's the practice that I would be dead set against. I think that's very unfair to authors, very unfair. And the fear that Karina feels when submitting a paper to that journal researchers should not have to deal with.
That is a researcher should never have to deal with that. That's just unfair. Well said. Well, she was. What's your view. Yeah, I actually I also never heard of this one, but mainly one of the things I think about is the sphere speed at which peer review gets turned around. And I can expect the feedback I see, like the time between submitting to a journal and even when something is accepted.
And, you know, there's not like four rounds of review going on. The time until I see that actually published in a journal is sometimes a horrifyingly long and it can be because of peer review. Even when the peer review is in the process of copy, editing is usually a living nightmare of copy editors just changing things Willy nilly, ruining figure layouts and equations. So quality of copy editing on a very superficial level would be highly appreciated.
In any journal I'm yet to find one that I would say is like acceptable. So if I could, if someone has some recommendations, they're happy to hear it because it's part of my job I don't like. OK let's move on. We have a question from anchor Pushkar. What is your view on open access and do you feel you're getting enough support from your institution to publish open access?
Are you aware of other sources of funding? Do you ask for open access funding when you're submitting a grant application right at the beginning? Oh, because. Oh, go, go, go. Yeah, because I work in the Netherlands, which I think is not through for anybody else here. And we have a strong push for publishing open access.
So there are a lot of agreements that actually the Dutch system of universities makes with publishers kind of on a collective basis about publishing fees and open access fees and what's covered and what's not. My University has, in addition to this, an open access fund that you can apply for, which will cover open access fees as long as the journals are registered in like a registry of open access journals, which makes sure that they're not predatory journals and they adhere to certain practices.
So I'm massively pro open access and it's becoming more and more a huge deciding factor for me about where to submit a journal, if it's open access, and whether the Dutch government has already made an agreement with that publisher to cover costs or whether I have to go and search for funding for this, which is what I really don't want to spend my time doing, as well as like believing strongly that all science should be open and accessible to everybody which supports core belief.
Yes Switzerland, yes. But something has gone, maybe even a step a bit further. It is a state requirement that you have to publish open access if you have government funding. And there are also additional funds or project funds that you can apply for to publish open access. But that's a completely eligible cost within your grant proposal also. Do you have to publish open data as well?
Do you think that should be mandatory? In Switzerland. No, you don't have to. But it's highly encouraged to share data and you know, up to a point that it doesn't jeopardize your intellectual property. Yeah, but Yeah. So once that is settled, then it is actually also a requirement then to share the data openly.
Ahmed what do you think about open access? I mean, I certainly have no moral objection to it. And quite the opposite. I think the more that we make science open access, the more that everyone is able to take advantage and gain that knowledge. For us, we don't have dedicated funds or grants that we can apply for, specifically for open access. You can incorporate it into a grant application.
But if you don't have that funding through a grant application, then our investigators are literally paying out of pocket from their own salaries or whatever to publish open access, which is a tough ask. It's a tough ask, especially when there's journals of similar quality that don't charge investigators. I do see the trend overall moving towards open access, but.
In a funded way. So for example, we see publishing houses again, similar to what was described, having contracts with universities where instead of just selling a subscription to the University for access to publish articles, the subscription is not just for that but also free open access publishing as well. So we have that with that agreement at the University of Cincinnati with some publishers where if a paper gets accepted, you can opt to publish it open access at no fee to you because of the agreement that's between the University and the publisher.
Yeah Yeah. Luca, what's your feeling? Yeah, I mean, I do support open, open access, and I do like it for many reasons. So I think review process is also sometimes quicker. I mean, I found quicker in some journals offering open access and it's also publishing more quickly when accepted. And then there are many, many cons of open access.
The Europe paper is basically made, made freely available in on internet and in the scientific community for free. You can also share in your social platform and this will increase the visibility of your paper. So when I choose a journal, to be honest, I do consider these options as well. And also as affiliation. I got an affiliation at University. We got an agreement with thousands of journals and to be honest, I feel very, very lucky on this side.
So if there is an option that is paid from my university, I do choose the option as an open access. So that will be something that I consider definitely. That makes very good sense. I want to ask you something else. What about language? Has it been a problem for you having to write papers in english? Yeah she and a Korean too.
But particularly Luka. I think so. Yes, definitely. I'm a non-native speaker, so you could have picked up. So I definitely think that having a good level of written English is crucial for the level of paper you you're writing, and consequently so for its final acceptance in the journal.
And so I find it quite difficult, to be honest when I started and you know, we in the previous University where I was, we were actually having someone writing the English for us. And so that was a good learning point. But yeah, so I also, you know, from a reviewer experience, I also review the papers that unfortunately that have, in my opinion, a good level of English and, but had good data.
So yeah, so it's difficult because sometimes your message that doesn't come across as it should be and you know, and then that's not fair. So that's why I think it's quite important also for the level overall of the level of quality of the paper you are you're basically submitting. Yeah, I think it's also sometimes a problem for a reviewing. I don't know how you feel about this, but I sometimes review papers, quite good content, but very badly expressed.
And we're told as reviewers not to correct the English very much, but to go for the scientific content. But sometimes the language just needs a rewrite that yeah, yeah, I agree with you and it's what happened. So, you know, good data. I was looking at the table, great work, but the, the message wasn't coming across properly and. Yeah so yeah, that's the point indeed. You know, I think this is where the tools will now more and more use ability.
I think that's right. Mohamed El Afghani has said why is there no investment from institutions, organizations, publishers to have a massive academic large language model to help all. And maybe that's the future. I don't know yet. I think it might well be helpful to have language auto corrected.
Except that. The current language I is using is slightly you said it was direct. I think it's slightly archaic stuff I've seen and very repetitive. But it will get better, no doubt. And I wanted to ask you as well about how you feel about support from journalists, not necessarily financial.
But things like certificates, continuing professional development, accreditation, lists of top reviewers. Do you like that idea of getting some feedback, getting some academic type of reward? Ahmed, what about you? I think it's certainly it certainly doesn't hurt. And I think it is it's one of those small things that can be done, but it makes you feel good as a reviewer.
You know, I don't at least for us, I don't know that a certificate necessarily is going to help me advance career wise, and I'm probably not going to hang them on the wall. Some of them I keep. But but I will tell you, it's just to me, it's like just getting a random compliment from someone who you work with. And, you know, some days someone just pulls you aside, say thank you for the work that you do, and I just makes you feel really good.
And then it just picks you back up and you're like, ready to go. And I think it's one of those small things that I think it just it helps from that standpoint more than anything else. Do the rest of you get contact education hours accredited for reviewing manuscripts? Can you do that? Shane you're not.
You're shaking your head. You can't. Karina, do you get credit? Depend on the channel, though, whether they do or do not grant them. What are some definitely offer that, but some not. But definitely to answer your question, I do appreciate the journals. Yeah, great.
Somehow gratifying the reviewers. Again, we were speaking about the financial reimbursement, but I think even certificates or points that you can review or see in your orcid profile are very helpful. And the other aspect, however, is that the publishers can give you this, but then the know, the grant evaluation committees should also take that as an additional evaluation criterion.
So that would be from both parts beneficial for their researcher to participate. Yeah speaking of the continuing medical education part that you mentioned, I personally have historically never asked for CME credit for doing reviews. But I will say from the editorial side, we have received lots of positive feedback from reviewers for that as a reward for what they do.
So I think there are a lot of individuals who are very interested in taking advantage of that for CME and it's helpful. Now luka, do you claim see any continuing medical education points for reviewing? Well, if I receive when reviewing the paper, I definitely save them and then I give to my institution during my annual appraisal, which is like a talk we do every, every year, and it's just as a recognition.
Otherwise I'm not asking. So if there's something that they send to me, I'll save it. Otherwise I'm not asking for that problem. Well, I should. Yes, I think should. One other thing that's come in fairly recently are preprints. Publication of preprints that have not been fully peer reviewed.
What is your opinion on those? It's not with you wishing. Yeah, very positive. So I pre-print all of my papers usually the moment I submit them. Usually I have asked many people for feedback before I submit paper. So I feel like I have I have kind of like some consensus that what I'm writing is at least in the sphere of being correct or reasonable.
But I don't often work with empirical data, so I don't necessarily publish a lot of novel empirical studies where I'm afraid of getting scooped. So maybe my observation is slightly different for other people there, but BI Publisher everything as preprints and I'm also protected by, I think, Dutch law that even if this is accepted in a journal, I can still have the preprint non journal formatted version on a preprint server and I can, I can put the journal formatted version of after I think like nine months there.
So I think it's also like balancing the open access debate. So the information is out there for whoever wants to find it very easily. It's like index in Google that's on my Google Scholar page and you don't have to have access to journals to see this. And I think that's a positive thing for the scientific community. Definitely very broad.
Preprints OK, carina, do you do that? I also do that. Then I think that's maybe partially revealing, relieving the fear of being scooped, because then you get your thing out, it's there, it's this data. And it's on. So and yeah, I actually publish it when, when the story is ready and then we're still thinking where to submit even.
And usually I'm glad to see that most journals have no objections of having the study already out as a preprint. OK if they do get a red flag from me with a journal, by the way. Yeah OK. So, Yeah. OK so interesting, Glenn, I personally don't use preprint servers just because for what I do, the risk of getting scooped is very low, and that's the only reason.
But I think it's a great tool and resource for investigators who are in more competitive fields, who need to make sure that their work, their hard work. Does it get scooped? Yeah Yeah. Luka Yeah. I never used a printer, so probably I'm not. I'm not familiar with the process, to be honest. Nothing against that.
But I don't know. I've got a different, slightly different opinion. I don't really like that, to be honest, because sometimes papers, you know, like once published could be slightly different from your print conclusion may be different analysis that some reviewers, they ask for more analysis to be done, or then your final result could be slightly different.
So that's my opinion preprints. Maybe you disagree with that. I'm sure you disagree with that. Yeah, that's why I don't. It's something that I'm not using. Yeah well, I think you're right. Most people have a versioning system, so where you site specific versions. And I think that I think that's actually a positive thing, that this process is completely transparent.
Right like you tried one analysis and you got a different conclusion and then you try a different analysis and something new was there. Sometimes this information doesn't make it into like a final printed version because you have word limits or some limits. I think like being open about these things as I'm not to convince you or anything like that, but.
No, no, no. I think I see this as a benefit. But it's funny enough that the exact thing that I think is a benefit in my eyes. Yeah and actually, when the paper gets accepted you get the link to the, to the peer reviewed version to get, you know, on the top of your preprint title. So that's allows anyone to immediately see what was then the difference between the preprint and the final accepted.
That that is very true and very good. That's brilliant. Do something that I didn't know. Yeah and that's why I said I'm not very familiar with the process. So yeah, it's interesting. No, I think it is. But I think it relates very much more to the urgent scientific discoveries which Karina or nosheen are working on probably, and the rest of us are less involved with.
We don't have much time left at all. But if you could think of a reward system that you would all like, what would you do for publishing? If you wanted to advise a publisher to make you happy, what would you what would you say? What would you like them to do for you as a scientist, as a Writer of papers, and as a peer reviewer? Do you have any ideas?
Many messages say. Yeah Yeah. If the reviewer. So if the editor sees the reviews. And if one of those reviews is really disrespectful and is not really on the point that this reviewer is maybe barred from being a reviewer ever again and actually get some feedback because I've got I've gotten such reviews that I'm like thinking that really in what world are we living?
So I think the editor's task would be very helpful if they would assess the quality of the reviews as well based on I think that's a good point. They've seen so many reviews so they can write such things. Yeah, Yeah. We do that at frontiers. We can rate the reviews. Anyone else want to make a final point about what they would like?
Any burning issues? I've seen some new journals offer, like even beyond editorial member compensation, peer review compensation. I think that this is an interesting idea to explore. I think especially in the given the current situation, at least in my field, is that it's very hard to find peer reviewers and peer review takes a very long time.
So I think everybody is feeling the pressure of having to do more and more work. More and more research is being done. More and more people need to review things. It is like an interesting idea to explore for journals, this kind of broader compensation sharing models. I think they would like to see more of that.
Right, glynnis? I would say I think from the standpoint of the publisher, I don't the publisher really can get outside of if they want it to offer financial incentives for doing things. I don't think really the publisher, aside from making sure that the journal doesn't go out of business, has as much influence in terms of factors that can drive us and incentivize us to do things.
But I will say, I think. When you when I look at who I want, reviewing my papers and who I want reviewing papers for me, as an associate editor, I want the people who are motivated by the desire, again, to serve and to be doing this for the right reason to help maintain the quality and rigor of the science that's in our field. And I think part of what excites those people is the ability to get more involved in journals.
And I think this is why I really love journals that in part determine editorial board members based directly on service. Because if you are a junior person and that there's absolutely no way that you're going to get on this editorial board because this journal only takes puts big shots who don't do any work or necessarily do as much work as you on their editorial board.
And I've seen this, you know, we chuckle about it, but we've both seen this, right? So that junior individual who has the desire, the motivation there, they have the energy, the drive to do this, they're going to get turned off and that kind of quells that fire to some degree. And and they're still doing it for the right reasons. But are they going to spend the Sunday afternoon, a nice Sunday afternoon doing this peer review instead of enjoying the weather outside?
Maybe probably not. You know, maybe not. But that's why I think having these merit based systems for greater involvement in the journals is, is a fantastic system for exciting young and not just young, but at any stage investigators who really wants to do this for the right reason. And we didn't even get into some of the I think part of the problem is now there's so many journals out there historically, like I even when I was in graduate school was which was I guess it's becoming longer now, but being an editorial board member always been such an honor and being getting invited to review was such an honor, like you wouldn't pass this up.
But it's, you know, part of the reason is there's this proliferation of journals. And I think we want people doing this for the right reason and we've got to get them excited and restore that honor that's associated with doing the reviews. Good point. Any thoughts on this? Final thoughts?
Well, I definitely agree with my colleagues what has been said so far. I would probably I don't know from a publisher point of view. So probably offering like language, language check for free, for example, for those once the paper has been accepted or once for those who are already open access. So it will be something that could be appreciated probably from now that are not speaking English as native speakers.
think it could be encouraging for them. Thank you. I think we've run out of time. I apologize to people who've asked questions that we haven't managed to answer. We've had some wonderful questions. And Thank you to our audience. Thank you very much for all of you. You've given terrific answers.
I hope it's been useful to the audience. I think it has. And I'm very grateful to you for giving up your time to this initiative. And Thank you, Karina. Thank you, shean. Thank you, Ahmed. Thank you, Luca, and Thank you very much. The society of scientific publishing, scholarly publishing for letting us have this discussion.
And goodbye, everyone. Goodbye it's time to see whether this discussion was recorded and all registrants who receive a link when posted on the cesp website. You must be logged in to view the recording session. This session is included. OK Thank you.
Goodbye
Form Title Download
Transcript
Form Title Bookmark
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Form Title Share
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Form Title Accessibility and Keyboard Shortcuts
The cadmore media player is a professional video and audio player experience designed to deliver media as well as relevant transcript, segmentation, and metadata. On the screen is a traditional html video player with buttons such as play, pause, forward, captioning, language and play speed selection and more. Adjacent to the video player are generally tabs, one of which shows a scrolling transcript of the video and the other shows any segmentation of the media, sometimes referred to as chapters. At the top of the video is a menu bar containing an Explore button and Tools button. The Explore button allows you to dig deeper into the video by opening up an explore dialog which contains tabs for a visual navigation of the video using thumbnails, an about tab which contains rich metadata about the media, a segments tab which contains further information about the video, and a related tab which contains links to other media related to this media. The tools button opens a menu with options for sharing the media on social media, creating bookmarking links, creating embed codes for your website, generating citations, and more.
Keyboard Shortcuts
Keyboard shortcuts only work while you are in forms mode. By entering forms mode, you will be able to quickly access portions of the media player with single key commands.
Spacebar: Play/Pause Toggle
I: Info Menu,
O: Tools Menu
T: Transcript Tab,
S: Segments Tab
F: Forward 15,
R: Rewind 15
L: Languages,
P: Playspeed
M: Mute Toggle,
V: Volume Bar
N: Video Only Toggle,
B: Full Screen Toggle
C: Captions Toggle
Escape: Closes dialogs and menus / Exits Player
Z: Next Transcript Chapter
X: Previous Transcript Chapter
Q: Next Transcript Paragraph
W: Previous Transcript Paragraph
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Embed Size
-
You Size - Responsive
-
We Size - Responsive
-
Picture Overlay Popup
-
400 x 225
-
512 x 288
-
400 x 700
-
768 x 1024
-
1024 x 512
-
1280 x 608
Form Title Cite
No citation provided.
Info
Segments
Related
Thumbnails
Exit Clip Mode
You have requested to see a portion of the video outside of the clip.
Click OK to switch to the full video or click if you would like to stay inside the clip. You can always go back to the clip with Tools and Clip Mode