Cadmore media player playing video Researcher Panel: A Discussion of First Hand Experiences
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:
Researcher Panel: A Discussion of First Hand Experiences
Description:
Researcher Panel: A Discussion of First Hand Experiences
Thumbnail URL:
https://cadmoremediastorage.blob.core.windows.net/d4fde3f4-44b9-4b9d-bf5a-4e0d7000bd26/thumbnails/d4fde3f4-44b9-4b9d-bf5a-4e0d7000bd26.png
Duration:
T00H55M54S
Embed URL:
https://stream.cadmore.media/player/d4fde3f4-44b9-4b9d-bf5a-4e0d7000bd26
Content URL:
https://cadmoreoriginalmedia.blob.core.windows.net/d4fde3f4-44b9-4b9d-bf5a-4e0d7000bd26/GMT20241002-152113_Recording.cutfile.20241002194734893_galle.mp4?sv=2019-02-02&sr=c&sig=E9IaubSgPZJFeLVVDFz3uQdEmfMumq961uOa3lFUOyw%3D&st=2025-04-17T12%3A54%3A34Z&se=2025-04-17T14%3A59%3A34Z&sp=r
Upload Date:
2025-02-06T00:00:00.0000000
Transcript:
Language: EN.
Segment:0 .
Hi, everybody. Thank you for staying around for the closing session of the new direction seminar. My name is Abby Licciardi. I am a publisher at Wiley, and I'm going to be your moderator for this session. And before we start, I want to make sure that I Thank my session co organizer and one of our committee co-leads, letty Conrad, for all of her hard work and dedication, not only to this, this session, but to the entire conference.
So this closing panel brings an opportunity to speak directly with researchers that are at all different career stages and across varying academic disciplines, about their firsthand publishing experiences. All of us know that researchers are the foundation of the scholarly publishing industry. They participate not only as authors, but of course, as reviewers, as editors and readers, but they also wear many other hats that intersect with our industry.
They're marketers of their own research. They're managers of their teams and labs. They are funders for their work and they can be influencers as well. So this high level of involvement in publishing illustrates how essential it is that we understand what researchers believe is important, what's valuable to them, what is honestly worth their time, and what is relevant to their work and career.
And this is important for us as an industry. No matter if we're a vendor, a publisher, a society or a library, because it will help us better support our research communities and better facilitate scholarly communication. So, lettie and I desire this panel to be a very open conversation. We've all gotten to know each other throughout the past day and a half.
So I welcome everyone to ask candid questions. Again, this is your opportunity to speak directly with these researchers, understand what they desire, need, like, and dislike about the topics that we've been discussing for the past few days. So please do not hesitate to ask any questions. So with that, I'm very excited to welcome our panel. I invite our panelists to introduce themselves. I'll just give some brief, brief background on what you do, what your background is, as well as your experience as an author and editor and a reviewer.
So, Kristen, we'll start with you. Great, Thanks. My name is Kristen poyner, and I want to thank everyone at SSP in this conference for welcoming me here, for I've had a really wonderful two days. I am not in the publishing industry. I'm an assistant professor at the University of Buffalo. So I've had a nice time taking it all in and trying to figure out how you guys work.
And I've learned so much from you about all of the issues that yesterday I would have said that you're facing. But today I think I will say that we are all facing together. Let's see what is my role? I'm an assistant professor in the Department of geology. My field is geophysics. So actually the Au is my professional society. That's a cool coincidence. I have I manage a team of graduate students and postdocs.
I am an associate editor at the cryosphere, which is one of the gold open access journals managed by the European Geophysical Union, direct competitor to the American Geophysical union. And I've handled 15 to 20 papers there in the three years that I've been doing that, I've been serving in that role. I mostly decline reviews now that I have the editor powers. I only review a couple of papers per year. Now And I have published a negative result.
I have noticed this bubbling to the top of so many conversations today and yesterday. It is my seventh most cited paper, which isn't which isn't bad, so it's actually inside my h-index it counts. And it's a negative result that I'm, I think, fairly proud of that particular paper because I figured out how to make it relevant. OK, enough from me.
John Hi, everybody. Yeah John Warren, I am director and associate professor of the graduate program in publishing at George Washington University. So I am a publisher foremost, I think. Not really a researcher foremost, but I do a fair amount of research. I've written about 10 solo papers and recently collaborated on a big paper with Jackie Lord and Charles Watkins and Kate Heaney and others.
Let's see. I also launched a journal as part of my program, the Journal of ethics and publishing, and launched a conference and now a second conference as well on a student journals, which is something I've gotten into over the past few years. So Yeah, we'll talk a lot about this, but one thing I would encourage you as publishers to do is to consider doing research yourselves.
Thank you. Donnie Hello there. I'm Donnie Prasad and I see my affiliations up there. Just to clarify, I'm a PhD candidate in the Department of science and technology studies at Cornell University. And broadly, my research looks at the political, socioeconomic and environmental effects characterizing technology, technological interventions in underserved communities.
Basically, how do you develop technologies for under-resourced rural remote communities and the like? My dissertation, in particular, I look at if you're familiar with spacex's satellite constellation Starlink, it's basically the satellite system that they have orbiting just a few kilometers 100 kilometers above the earth, beaming internet down. And I'm looking at the way that it's changing how we think about the future of internet connectivity, the future of astronomical research, because it's significantly impacting how you can do certain types of experiments and observations, and what it means for the outer space environment and for our terrestrial environment, because all these satellites are now decomposing in the atmosphere.
And we have no idea what's going on. And there's also concerns over satellite collisions and Kessler syndrome and the like there. So I'm looking at all that and trying to make sense of it. As a author, I've pretty much got, I think, five publications where they've all been joint efforts to where in open access journals, and the other three were in paid subscription journals, I believe.
And Yeah, I'm just looking forward to the discussion today and kind of hearing it from the other side. What it's like working in the publishing industry and how to think about that in terms of my academic career going forward. Thank you. And faith is joining us online. Faith, can you please introduce yourself? Hi Hello, everyone.
My name is Faith T. I'd like to Thank SSP for inviting me to join this esteemed panel today. I am from the opposite end of research. I am a PhD student in my second year at Texas women's University. I have been a registered nurse for over 3334 years now. So I am new to the research project and the research process. But I am coming from the world of health and I've always been reading your journals, especially the health journals and the nursing journals, and I'm just starting out in publishing.
I plan to publish my first article at the end of this semester, and I Thank you for welcoming me today. OK, wonderful. It's great to have all of these panelists with us. And we thought we would start this session a little bit differently. While we do have some sort of prepared Q&A, and of course, we welcome questions from the audience.
What we're going to start with is a suite of what I call rapid fire questions. So these are going to be questions to our panelists where they can simply answer yes or no, or a one word answer with no elaboration, just to set the stage. And they agreed to this line of questioning. But the catch is, is that they do not know what questions are coming their way.
So I don't know what they're going to answer. Only two options. That's right. So OK. Question one and we'll start with Kristin and go down the line like we did with introductions. So question one yes or no. Do you post your research on preprint servers? Yes no.
No in faith. Not applicable just yet. Question two are you currently aware of all the funding for publishing fees that are provided by your institution? No yes. No and faith. No question three. What is one reason why you would choose to not publish in a journal you previously published in?
Two slow review time. If I didn't have a good experience with it. Earlier experience as well. Same same. And if they're reading population has gone down. OK question four. And we'll reverse the order here. So faith you'll be first. OK should chatgpt or any other large language model be listed as a co-author on a published manuscript?
Absolutely no. Questionable no. I think. Listed as a co co-author. Absolutely not. Acknowledged perhaps. As use. Yes no. OK same order for this one.
And this will be on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being not at all and 5 being very much. Do you think the publishing industry is trustworthy? I'm going to say I'm going to give it a three. Three five. Four OK. Mixed bag. And our final rapid fire question.
If you could pick one reason for choosing a journal to publish your research. What would that singular reason be? And faith, you can go first. Sure readership. Aims and scope. If I like the author, I mean if I like the articles and I'm familiar with the journal, but it's operated by a professional society.
OK, interesting. So with that, that's the end of our rapid fire. And I guess I'd really like to continue the conversation sort of on that last question. So again, this is how you select a journal to publish in or what drives you to continue publishing in that journal. So I'd like to maybe have each of you elaborate on your answers. And Donnie, why don't we start with you on this one?
Sure so for me, it's mainly the aims and scope that I'm kind of thinking about when I'm looking at publishing my dissertation research just because I want to make sure that it's going out to an audience that's going to be interested in what I'm talking about. And then I kind of consider the other things that you would normally look at, like whether or not it's open access, word limits, you know, other Mnuchin like that.
But if the aims and scope don't necessarily align with what I want to do, then I kind of set the I would set those journals aside and look for ones that have a better fit. John, how about you? So, you know, personally I'm less impressed or less concerned about impact factor and things like that. But I give a lot of talks to early career researchers, early career faculty.
And I always say, you know, follow journals, read the articles. If you if you like the journals, articles and, you know, tend to read most of them, then that's a good place to publish and faith. Why don't we go to you? I was going to say, as I'm thinking about the question being at the beginning, a novice researcher, I would what I'm going to do at the end of the semester is pick a journal that is, is within the nursing world and within nursing.
And then would it be a good fit for what I'm going to be attempting to publish? And Kristen, you had a different answer. So if you could elaborate, I did, and I wonder if the reaction was that I said the word operated, that it's operated by a professional society. I wonder if that just means something different that I didn't intend to mean, that it's really that it's associated with a professional society.
It's OK with me that Wiley operates the Au journals. Totally fine. BI Publisher in them. I've never submitted a manuscript to nature. I don't plan to. Science is maybe different because it's associated with the triple A's. But Yeah, I don't know. I don't need to pay $12,000 APC.
And if I do, it's definitely going to be to the triple A's. I don't know if there's anybody here from Springer Nature, but I think everybody you all move around so much. Everybody here has worked at Springer Nature or will one day. So there's my controversial take. OK does anyone in the audience have any comments or questions? Hi Yeah Tim Lloyd Livingston.
I'm really interested to hear what would you like back after something's been published that would indicate what the value of you choosing to either go with that particular journal or to choose that particular publish in terms of, you know, measuring the impact of that publishing. No just freeform. What do you what would you like back? Would anyone like to start?
I've never thought of that. It's once the article is published. That has always seemed like the end to me. And then how it does in terms of does it get citations or whatever? I guess I've never really seen that as something that anyone could control. But maybe now you're suggesting that the publisher could control that, and that would be pretty cool.
Yeah if you could boost it, tweet it, exit whatever they I don't know. Yeah go ahead John. Well, so a lot of my research and interests are around impact. And the impact of research and something that I've worked on for many years. And I think it was Jenny that mentioned that kind of dashboard I think. Yeah so that's something that, you know, kind of goes way back as well.
I've done some work on that. And I want to mention, especially so National Academies Press and Alphonse McDonald, I think more than 10 years ago, developed this great dashboard that you could look at an article or book and see where it's been mentioned, where it's been, you know, cited in Congress, mentioned in articles. Altmetrics bringing all this stuff together and that I think is the Holy Grail.
And, and a lot of that revolves around, you know, metadata at the front end, but then also, you know, measuring the impact at the end as well. Yeah I never really thought about that. I also kind of just assumed that after I submitted for publication, that's kind of it. And then I move on to something else. But to John's point there, I think kind of alternative metrics beyond, I guess just citations within the academic community would be quite valuable, especially because I'm working on something that's really policy engaged right now.
So having some kind of metric like that that engages with, you know, real world impact would be pretty motivating and extremely valuable kind of going forward that I could point to and say, hey, this might not have gained as much traction within this particular community, but more broadly, I can point to this. Right? and, faith, do you have anything to add?
I was just going to comment on John, Kristen and Donnie's answers. I agreed with them all. I've never thought of what happens after BI Publisher an article of once it's published. It's published and you hope that it gains traction. But I like the idea of it being disseminated to other health care communities that might find value in it as well.
And I do like the idea also, too, of boosting the publication of the article through different social media or media accounts. I think it sounds like us as publishers need to make this a little bit more visible to you as researchers, that we do these things. And Heather, you have a question here in the room. Yeah Hi. Heather Stevens from Delta pink.
A lot of the work that the various publishers are doing here is around the launching of new journals. Those new journals might be open. That's, you know, been a trend lately, but they might not be. What you would you consider publishing in a brand new journal? And if you would, what would be the kinds of things you would look for that might be similar to your publishing and your regular journals, but might be different?
What would it take you to convince to publish in a new journal? Because that's a lot of the conversations that we have with societies and publishers around New journals. My University asks me to do a lot of things for free, and I could be better at saying, what's my incentive? So I think that would be my question to you is, what is the incentive of taking a risk on a brand new journal?
I think that that would have to be made clear to me before I would kind of change my workflow and change my patterns. I think I've actually kind of encountered a situation like this where there was a new this is back when I was doing my master's, and there was a new open access geography journal that had just started called. If anybody's familiar. And because it was new at the time, my advisor actually changed our target journal from to the professional geographer in Canada, because that's a more well established journal.
And it would help with, you know, certain metrics like impact factor and stuff like that going down the line. So as a, I guess, you know, early career stage scholar, it would be I guess it would kind of go against what I've kind of been taught by my mentors as I've kind of, you know, worked through it all. So I think having a better idea of incentives and what this kind of new journal or new publishing environment would bring would definitely help weigh into those decisions, because of just how we're kind of taught to think about early career publications and the like.
When one of the phrases I use a lot with my students is dominate the niche. And I launched a journal as part of our graduate program in publishing, and it was based on a niche, which is ethics in publishing, which is kind of oddly broad and niche at the same time, and it has been a bit of a struggle getting submissions, honestly. But it was designed primarily to have students get experience managing a journal and to be able to publish their work, and also to publish work of everybody here.
So if you're interested in ethics and publishing, please do submit to us. But Yeah, it is a challenge to get, you know, awareness and interest in New journal. But again, I think it does run down to, you know, is it a new niche or niche and faith. What do you think about publishing in a brand new journal? I think it's best to leave that question to the fellow panelists who've published previously, and I am learning from all of their answers.
So thank you for that. Wonderful go ahead. We have one more question in the room. Hi, Laura Ritchie from Clark and Esposito. So in this discussion, we've been focusing a lot so far on the journals and publishing articles, and rightfully so. But I'm wondering if this group could speak a little bit about sharing other kinds of research outputs.
And here I'm thinking specifically about your data. So my questions for you are do you think about sharing your data? What do you think about sharing your data and why? Well, can I first say, you know, since you talking about journals, I'm kind of primarily a books person myself, but but I have published journal articles, so. And I published an open textbook.
There are a lot of different, a lot of different types of outputs. And then in terms of data. My own research hasn't used tons of data. It's been tending to be more qualitative. But but the article I mentioned is forthcoming and learned publishing hopefully soon with Jackie and Charles and Kate and others that did use a large data set that we got from many publishers, and we do plan to make that data open, a cleaned version of it.
Down here. Kristen, do you have anything to add? Yeah publishing data. Sharing data is great. I do small versions of that, like through GitHub for instance. Sharing larger data sets is just more difficult.
I am I want to do it. But it takes time to format and curate. I do use my university's institutional repository for that. It works reasonably well, handles large file sizes. But it just takes time. So I honestly don't really do it until the article is being published and it's a requirement.
For anything else to add, faith or donnie? No not really. A lot of my data sets are just FOIA requests and like publicly available stuff. I will add that, you know, earlier Kristen mentioned incentives. And I think if there are more incentives for sharing data, there would be more data sharing.
OK OK. Sounds good. The Zoom room. OK this question is from Christine. Have any of the panelists received solicitations from suspicious or predatory journals? How did you identify the red flags? Great question. Yeah, I you come to my inbox.
They're they're easy to identify. In my field, there are, you know, maybe 5 or 10 or 15 journals that we know publish in. The reputation is there. It's strong. And, you know, when the email comes from Mrs. Whatever whoever it's not it's they're easy to find for me.
So we haven't talked about the peer review side of things. But I do do some, you know, pretty frequently do peer review. And and I recently received a request to do peer review. And I thought it might be a predatory or suspicious journal. So I kind of had to hunt around for a while. But then I, I found that it, you know, it seemed to be legit. So so I did go ahead and it and it was but you know, I didn't just take it for granted.
In fact, my radar was kind of, I don't know, this journal. So I was thinking it was probably suspicious, but it wasn't. Was it simply just because you didn't recognize the journal? Or were there traits that were suspicious? Yeah, it was. It kind of had one of those suspicious kind of names, you know. And I wasn't familiar with it.
So, you know. So, Yeah. And from our early career researchers, Donny or faith, do you have any thoughts on this topic? Yeah so also get spam solicitation emails as well. And a lot of the time I kind of just confer with my advisors or somebody who's, you know, more senior in my department to just get an idea of, Oh, hey, this journal emailed me.
Have you ever heard of this before? It is a reputable that kind of deal. And just quick Google search as well. But you can kind of tell them apart again by like the domain name and things like that. Yeah faith do you have any comments? I was going to say the same thing. I'm surprised that as a student, I do get emails from predatory journals looking to find people to submit their manuscripts.
And as a student, I'm surprised that they could find me. But as well as my, my fellow scholars and my cohorts. But if something does come to my email and I am questioning it within the nursing department, we have a whole algorithm that we follow to research journals themselves to make sure that they're either predatory or they're trustworthy for our work. All right. We'll take one more question here in the room before moving on to topic, a different topic.
OK I think this can be quick. I, I enjoy a real broad variety of kinds of clients I deal with, and I want to bring something up, since this is specifically a researcher panel that is research organizations. I've had research organizations as clients from time to time. I have one right now, very active one. They're a completely different animal because one that I, the one I'm working with now doesn't publish in journals.
They're producing a report for the NIH or for the Department of Education, et cetera and that's and they make their money from the fees that they get paid by that agency that's sponsoring their research. But those are professional researchers. Those are PhD researchers just like you guys. Right and one that I client I had many years ago does a publish a journal.
In fact, it's an important journal in their field. And so I you know, I sat down early in my engagement talking to their CEO, and I said, well, you know, I presume that your primary audience is other researchers in your field. And she said, well, no, absolutely not. There may be third. I said, Oh well what are your main what is your main audience? She said policymakers, that's who we care about as policymakers.
And second to them is the public. And only third is maybe other researchers like us. I thought that might be of interest to people. Yeah, very much so. Any comments from our panelists? You might have been talking about one of my former employers. I'm not sure, but I did work for a dozen years at the Rand Corporation, and that was true of them.
They were primarily focused on policy makers. And and then, you know, secondly, the clients that hire them and then the public and then other researchers. All right. Let's move on to a different topic. John, you actually just brought this up, which is the topic of peer review.
And, you know, I'll ask the question, which type or model of peer review do each of our panelists think is the most effective or their preferred model? But I also just want to open this up as a more broad brush topic on peer review. You know, your experiences as an author, a reviewer, or an editor would be helpful to share. And John, since you brought up peer review, I'll let you go first.
OK well, it reminds me of a quote by attributed to Winston Churchill, but he was actually quoting others that democracy is the worst form of government except compared to all other forms of government. And so I would say with peer review, it's kind of similar, like double anonymous is probably the worst form except compared to other forms. So but I do think it's interesting to and important to experiment with other forms.
So I think experimentation but I don't think I've seen necessarily anything better than double anonymous. Yeah, double anonymous is kind of the go to for social sciences, humanities stuff I believe. And I like it. I like not knowing who's reading my work. And I like that they don't know my name.
But there are, I guess, certain situations where I've been part of a different kind of peer review, like special editions of journal, or like if there's a particular theme that's organized around, you know, the authors there, and then they're obviously going to know your work. And then there's kind of a more collaborative peer review process that goes into that. That was also pretty enjoyable.
But I don't know, there's kind of a trade off, I guess, because you don't get an overview outside of that immediate thematic group that you're working with so it can vary. And faith, I know haven't gone through peer review yet, but do you have any perspectives or thoughts? Not at this time. Thank you for asking them. Of course.
I think in my field we do not have a PR except for proposals where it's kind of under trial and it's I don't know, maybe I won't talk about proposals, but for manuscripts it's just single, blind. And so I don't know I don't know what's better. I have no experience in that. But something that Michelle said in her keynote yesterday, maybe she said it or maybe somebody else said it, I don't know, but it I totally agreed with it that reviews are scholarly outputs.
And so they ought to be out there. And so the idea of what is it? It's just open peer review, I think, is my description of the best model of peer review. One thing I do want to encourage or even command everybody in the room. And joining us online to participate as a peer reviewer. So, you know, most of you are participating in the process and often managing peer review.
But but do some peer review yourself. Volunteer as a peer reviewer. That's a great point. And Kristen, that might put you on the spot. But as an editor, a current editor, what's your experience with handling the peer review process? Oh, so, so broad? Do you want me to comment on finding soliciting reviewers or, you know, handling conflicting reviews or what's of interest?
Dealer's choice. I guess, Yeah. The peer review crisis has been a word that I've, I've heard from now. Now from time to time at this conference. And I have been hoping that we will talk about it because I, I need solutions. It's so hard to find peer reviewers who are qualified and who say yes and who have the time, the time to do it.
And I'm part of that problem. I told you in my introduction that I decline most peer reviews these days because I don't have the bandwidth to do it. Yeah, that's probably my biggest struggle as an editor is finding peer reviewers and doing so in a timely fashion. You know, the manuscript sits. It looks bad when it's sitting on the editor's desk, but that's where it sits, the longest, because, you know, you have to find peer reviewers.
And if I do it in batches of five, then I feel guilty when occasionally four of them do say yes and like, wow. And so I do it in batches of two. But then it takes forever. And then pretty soon I've hit the bottom of who I know that's out there in the field, and I spend so long on Google Scholar, like trying to find who else has even published in this area, who you know, might be able to contribute a peer review.
And can I add to the conversation of the peer review process? Just to add to John and Christine's point, part of our progress to get to dissertation one is that we must complete a competency of being a peer reviewer. So starting next week, myself and some of my cohorts are becoming peer reviewers and going through the training for some of the nursing journals.
But we cannot get to dissertation one unless we have satisfied a peer reviewing position for an academic journal within our PhD of nursing science program. Good that's extremely interesting because I guess it would probably vary by department, but there's not really much of an emphasis on being a peer reviewer in my experience as a, you know, master's student, PhD student, it's mainly about, OK, how do you identify a journal?
How do you publish? What venue are you going to consider? It's always around the output of knowledge rather than being a peer reviewer. So I think incorporating it into the training of scholars would be extremely beneficial going forward. And it would kind of help to address, you know, this peer review crisis that's going on because these are, you know, people in the fields coming up who have certain sets of expertise that they're cultivating, which they could apply as a reviewer.
And I never reviewed I haven't served as a peer reviewer yet. I'd love to, but I haven't been contacted by anybody yet. It is something that. Oh, sorry, John. No go ahead. What I was going to say is that a part of our program at Texas women's University is that they feel that they're solving two problems. One is add more peer reviewers to the population, and two, by reading quality manuscripts when you come across them and when you read them.
You're also learning as well from other scholarly pieces of information and other scholarly manuscripts. So Yeah, I was just going to add it is something that we do, and one of our courses at GW is, is have people do some peer review of papers and really emphasizing positive and constructive peer review. And how you do it. And it is a real eye opener for most students because most of them have never, never done it.
And, you know, to your point, you know, everybody wants their book or article peer reviewed. But no, almost nobody wants to do it. You know, just like everybody wants research published, but nobody wants to pay for it. So I have to I have to admit, if it wasn't one of the 13 competencies to move forward to dissertation one, I don't think I would have thought of it as an option, but it's mandatory for PhD and nursing students.
It's very interesting and Thank you for your transparency. Jackie, we have an online question. Yes, this question is for Kristin. When you say that qualified, you need qualified peer reviewers. Can you describe what a qualified peer reviewer is? One aspect. How early in the career are you willing to go? Yeah, they need disciplinary expertise and each paper needs, you know, two or maybe three reviewers.
And so maximum one of them is what I would feel comfortable being, you know, someone very early career who maybe even hasn't published something yet. But hopefully they've hopefully the other two reviewers I'm not even hopefully, I think I would feel I may have to bend more than this as time goes on, but now I am unyielding that you have to have published a paper in order to peer review.
And Yeah, I think having one person who hasn't is probably good for the diversity of the types of reviews that you get, because the reviews look different. I guess I want to do a follow up question to that for Donnie and faith. When you are hoping to have a peer review done, you know, would you be comfortable having all of your peer reviewers not have published before, or would you prefer that they had be more established?
Donnie, I don't know if you want to go first or you wanted me to go first. No, I was I was recoiling, thinking about, OK, so you can see. Yeah, I would say that I would be comfortable with the diversity, Kristin mentioned. I would love being a part of nursing science. I would like for my manuscript to not only teach a reviewer, but also maybe something that reviewer, as a novice researcher, is able to pick up something from my work that helps them become published, and then hopefully the cycle continues and they Pay It forward and become a reviewer themselves.
But I would feel more comfortable having someone as a novice reviewer, but also having people who have been published because you want to keep the journals that you're publishing in scholarly and scientific, and the way to produce that is to make sure that your work is checked by people who have been published and know what to look for in a quality piece of work.
Are you ready, donny? Yeah and I pretty much agree. I, I'm of the opinion kind of following Kristen's line where I probably would only want one person who's like an early career scholar, which is interesting to say as an early career scholar, just due to the fact that you'd want somebody with more expertise, time in the field, familiarity with the subject matter to kind of provide additional perspectives.
But I'd be comfortable having, you know, one of my three peer reviewers. Being an early stage scholar, I'd like to add just something kind of on the side to that. I think this is very context specific. If, if, if it's an article about cancer, I would want cancer researchers to be doing the review. But in many cases, I think it's appropriate for people outside the field to be doing review.
Not in every case, but I think many journals could benefit from getting people from tangential fields or other fields because, you know, in many cases, we do want to communicate to a wider audience. And part of the problem of scholarly literature, in my opinion, is it tends to be too hyper focused to that, you know, that community and should be clearer and easier to understand for more. So I think, you know, one thing people can do to solve that crisis of peer reviewers is to look to related fields or other fields.
It kind of sounds like robbing Peter to pay Paul, though, right? Because your reviewers are overtaxed and your discipline too. So if I start, you know, going into there. We'll leave it at that one. We have a question over here in the room. Doctor Sarah Wright from the American Veterinary Medical Association.
I'm an associate editor and also an aquatic animal health researcher. I've authored and co-authored around 10 peer reviewed articles and for our journals. We have had massive success with finding peer reviewers recently due to several changes that we made. So I'd say 90% of the time I have reviewers assigned and accept within 36 hours of me having the manuscript in my hands, and I do that by casting a wide net like you guys are talking about.
And veterinary medicine. We do have this bottleneck where people are typically only inviting their friends to review, or they're inviting that one dolphin researcher that they know is going to give them a good review. But you have to cast a wide net. Otherwise, you're overburdening the people that are reviewing for all the journals on the same topic.
So I typically invite 6 to 10 reviewers, and sometimes you do have more that accept that you need. But I do want to invite them, and I think only 3% of the time do they have a problem with that. And if they do have a problem, I say email me your comments. I'll pass it along to the associate editor. We also offer continuing education credits to for our reviewers. So reviewer recognition and rewarding.
I understand we're a medical field, so that's very discipline specific, but that has definitely been great for us. Even people that don't need to see, they say, hey, Thanks for the acknowledgment. It just feels good. And I've heard that too, from other veterinary journals that I also sometimes help out with. And we also have a scientific review board that we implemented as well.
These individuals have to review six manuscripts per year, and then they get a certificate that they can use for promotion, et cetera we also recognize our top reviewers every year and we have a student peer reviewer training program where they are paired with a experienced reviewer and they learn how to review articles. So we do use some of the training out there. I think specifically the Elsevier training we use, and then they have the experience of co reviewing with an experienced person.
And then hopefully the goal is to have them be the next generation of reviewers. So we do need to support our early career researchers and turn them into reviewers and instill the importance of peer review, because that's definitely a deficit that we're seeing, at least in the veterinary side of things right now. Thank you for the comment.
Sure Thanks, Joel. Silver so we had presentation yesterday that we should think about the scholarly publishing process in a different way. So right now we have peer review and then we have sort of publish. Right there was this notion that we should flip that. So we should publish and then peer review. So my question to you is and you're at different stages in your career.
So I'm interested on your perspective on this. Is that would you publish first, and then go to peer review? Is that something you would undertake? And how do you think that would help or hinder your career? Well I can clarify if it's confusing. No, I think my takeaway from, from that part of the discussion yesterday was that that's basically here. Right?
the preprint goes up. You make it something that you're proud of. You probably haven't thought of everything. And that's what, the review will help you. What was the word? Maybe it was curate, but I don't think it was. But it'll help you make your manuscript better until it ultimately gets published. Published I'm totally comfortable with that.
And I think that's increasingly common for the model now. Am I right? Well, the subtlety they were suggesting is that it's not that you were pre printing and then publishing that you were publishing and then peer review. So what those articles that you're publishing now, you would just publish them and then it would go to peer review in an open fashion. So there would be no going to the journal and going through it.
So it was completely flipped. I think it's like I said, with democracy, it's, you know, it sounds good, sounds plausible and good. In reality, I don't think it's workable and certainly not scalable. The problem is that and I've seen experimentation on this. One of the first people I saw that tried this was Bob Stein. But it's, you know, articles that would get a lot of attention would probably go through that process.
Others might get none. And then what do you do after, you know, if you publish? And then there's, let's say, hundreds people reviewing it, then you're going to like redo it and republish. I just don't think it's workable. It's good to experiment with stuff like that though. It'd be interesting if my field started to embrace the preprint kind of modeling, because we don't really do preprints at all.
It's always just, OK, we're going to submit it off for peer review. There's no real thought to kind of inverting the order like you're talking about. And I think it would be a bit of a struggle just because kind of what Jon mentioned, where it would just be so open that you'd receive so much solicitation about what you're saying, or claims that you're making, or argumentation that you're making, that it would kind of collapse in on itself later on.
I just want to make a quick comment. I think it was the new elife model that they're really talking about. Is it OK? Can I get you a quick question online, very practical. Yes what kinds of AI machine learning specifically not Gen. I would you recommend or find helpful with your reviews? This is a great question because it tied into the next question that we were going to discuss, but we're short on time, so please take this question.
It's hard for me to know how AI that's not generative I would be involved in the review process. But I can tell you that one of my graduate students who's closest to submitting this paper, hopefully this semester is Yeah, her thesis is going to be machine learning as sort of a numeric analyzer rather than generative.
So she analyzes satellite images to find specific patterns. And that's all machine learning. And then she's writing the manuscript hopefully with her own fingers. But every once in a while I see some sentences in her Google Doc that are like, I don't think you wrote that. But OK, I've gotten on a tangent. Donny or faith or john?
Any thoughts on ai? I'm extremely weary of it in a publication context, just because of. Well, at least there were issues with, I guess, more generative AI models where they were, at least in the initial phase, you know, making up citations that didn't exist or something like that. And this is probably more of a tangent, but I used it as kind of a teaching tool where I asked my first year students in my writing seminar to give the essay prompt to chatgpt, and then we'd edit the essay that chatgpt wrote on the topic together in class and point out what it did right, what it should improve on, and things like that.
But in terms of peer review, I would not really feel comfortable with the I being a part of that process. Faith, do you have any thoughts to share about I and peer review or otherwise? I wouldn't feel comfortable either if I was peer reviewing one of my manuscripts, because within our program, our professors make us more afraid of using AI, because if they find that AI is used too much in any of our papers, or if it's used too much as an adjunct and we don't cite it properly, it could be cause for dismissal from our program, using it to rewrite something that we wrote within a couple of sentences.
That's fine, but for peer reviewing or too much of AI, we're really warned against it within our PhD program. Yeah, I think I would underscore that. And I think I see one difference between. Universities and you know, they play such an important value. Rightly so, I think on original thought and the nurturing of your own ideas and the development of them out of your own brain, that it's actually a bit different from the vibe I've gotten in this room, which is like, you know, Yeah, let's use chatgpt to write that end of the day email and just get it, you know, just get things done.
Yeah it's so again, you know, my graduate programs in publishing program and I have been encouraging my students, at least for the past couple of years, to be using and experimenting with AI. I don't necessarily make it a requirement. I do encourage them to use different tools, use them conscientiously, and acknowledge when they're used. I personally I've been following or looking or Yeah, reading about AI since 2005, I guess.
And I, you know, I just think it's inevitable that we all need to know how to use it. David Samson mentioned perplexity. If you haven't used that, try that out. I've been using deepl. There's a lot of tools out there that are helpful. And, you know, again, as publishers, we all need to be familiar with them. One of, if I may piggyback on to John's response, one of the reasons the nursing schools and the colleges of Nursing are moving away from AI is because new graduates are not embracing critical thinking, because of the use of too much AI and too much technology, that they're not developing that sense of knowingness when it comes to seeing their patients.
They're relying too much on computer generated information. So the lost skill of critical thinking, of synthesizing information, of putting different pieces of a patient's appearance, vital signs, health signs, medications, preexisting preexisting conditions. If you lose that ability to synthesize information, you're going to miss telltale signs with your patient that something might be going wrong, or there could be a mistake made.
So the colleges of Nursing are moving away from using AI to do our job for us, because it is minimizing emerging nurses, being able to think critically and synthesize information. I think that is a critical danger that we all have to be cognizant of. And, you know, I think it's been mentioned many times, you know, humans in the loop. And one of my friends, Barbara Kline pope, she says a lot, you know, you have to have a human in the loop at the beginning and at the end.
So I don't think it replaces critical thinking necessarily, but the danger is certainly there. I see an analogy with the airlines, not the airlines. With with flying an autopilot. When autopilot was introduced and became quite a thing, crashes went up and the severity of crashes went up. And it was because the pilots did not have that mundane training hour after hour with their hands on the rudder to get the feel of the aircraft.
And so when they had to take over in stressful situations, they weren't as adequately trained up. And that's what I worry about with my graduate students' minds. And, you know, other people in Faith's program, for instance, these are very, very valuable insights. And we've actually gone all the way to the end of our session with that. I think it flew by.
But I do want to ask our panelists one closing rapid fire question. And that's basically if you could summarize in one word how you are currently feeling about publishing. How would you do that? Faith how about you go first? Are you going to pick me first? In all honesty and transparency, intimidated? I think that makes sense.
For early career. I was so myself amped. Publishing is great. It's how we get the word out. All right, Donnie, how about you? Optimistic wonderful. And, John, the closer. Can I use more than one word? If you must.
I'd like to say publishing is a stable landscape of continuous change. Excellent all right, well, with that, let's give our panelists round of applause.
Segment:0 .
Hi, everybody. Thank you for staying around for the closing session of the new direction seminar. My name is Abby Licciardi. I am a publisher at Wiley, and I'm going to be your moderator for this session. And before we start, I want to make sure that I Thank my session co organizer and one of our committee co-leads, letty Conrad, for all of her hard work and dedication, not only to this, this session, but to the entire conference.
So this closing panel brings an opportunity to speak directly with researchers that are at all different career stages and across varying academic disciplines, about their firsthand publishing experiences. All of us know that researchers are the foundation of the scholarly publishing industry. They participate not only as authors, but of course, as reviewers, as editors and readers, but they also wear many other hats that intersect with our industry.
They're marketers of their own research. They're managers of their teams and labs. They are funders for their work and they can be influencers as well. So this high level of involvement in publishing illustrates how essential it is that we understand what researchers believe is important, what's valuable to them, what is honestly worth their time, and what is relevant to their work and career.
And this is important for us as an industry. No matter if we're a vendor, a publisher, a society or a library, because it will help us better support our research communities and better facilitate scholarly communication. So, lettie and I desire this panel to be a very open conversation. We've all gotten to know each other throughout the past day and a half.
So I welcome everyone to ask candid questions. Again, this is your opportunity to speak directly with these researchers, understand what they desire, need, like, and dislike about the topics that we've been discussing for the past few days. So please do not hesitate to ask any questions. So with that, I'm very excited to welcome our panel. I invite our panelists to introduce themselves. I'll just give some brief, brief background on what you do, what your background is, as well as your experience as an author and editor and a reviewer.
So, Kristen, we'll start with you. Great, Thanks. My name is Kristen poyner, and I want to thank everyone at SSP in this conference for welcoming me here, for I've had a really wonderful two days. I am not in the publishing industry. I'm an assistant professor at the University of Buffalo. So I've had a nice time taking it all in and trying to figure out how you guys work.
And I've learned so much from you about all of the issues that yesterday I would have said that you're facing. But today I think I will say that we are all facing together. Let's see what is my role? I'm an assistant professor in the Department of geology. My field is geophysics. So actually the Au is my professional society. That's a cool coincidence. I have I manage a team of graduate students and postdocs.
I am an associate editor at the cryosphere, which is one of the gold open access journals managed by the European Geophysical Union, direct competitor to the American Geophysical union. And I've handled 15 to 20 papers there in the three years that I've been doing that, I've been serving in that role. I mostly decline reviews now that I have the editor powers. I only review a couple of papers per year. Now And I have published a negative result.
I have noticed this bubbling to the top of so many conversations today and yesterday. It is my seventh most cited paper, which isn't which isn't bad, so it's actually inside my h-index it counts. And it's a negative result that I'm, I think, fairly proud of that particular paper because I figured out how to make it relevant. OK, enough from me.
John Hi, everybody. Yeah John Warren, I am director and associate professor of the graduate program in publishing at George Washington University. So I am a publisher foremost, I think. Not really a researcher foremost, but I do a fair amount of research. I've written about 10 solo papers and recently collaborated on a big paper with Jackie Lord and Charles Watkins and Kate Heaney and others.
Let's see. I also launched a journal as part of my program, the Journal of ethics and publishing, and launched a conference and now a second conference as well on a student journals, which is something I've gotten into over the past few years. So Yeah, we'll talk a lot about this, but one thing I would encourage you as publishers to do is to consider doing research yourselves.
Thank you. Donnie Hello there. I'm Donnie Prasad and I see my affiliations up there. Just to clarify, I'm a PhD candidate in the Department of science and technology studies at Cornell University. And broadly, my research looks at the political, socioeconomic and environmental effects characterizing technology, technological interventions in underserved communities.
Basically, how do you develop technologies for under-resourced rural remote communities and the like? My dissertation, in particular, I look at if you're familiar with spacex's satellite constellation Starlink, it's basically the satellite system that they have orbiting just a few kilometers 100 kilometers above the earth, beaming internet down. And I'm looking at the way that it's changing how we think about the future of internet connectivity, the future of astronomical research, because it's significantly impacting how you can do certain types of experiments and observations, and what it means for the outer space environment and for our terrestrial environment, because all these satellites are now decomposing in the atmosphere.
And we have no idea what's going on. And there's also concerns over satellite collisions and Kessler syndrome and the like there. So I'm looking at all that and trying to make sense of it. As a author, I've pretty much got, I think, five publications where they've all been joint efforts to where in open access journals, and the other three were in paid subscription journals, I believe.
And Yeah, I'm just looking forward to the discussion today and kind of hearing it from the other side. What it's like working in the publishing industry and how to think about that in terms of my academic career going forward. Thank you. And faith is joining us online. Faith, can you please introduce yourself? Hi Hello, everyone.
My name is Faith T. I'd like to Thank SSP for inviting me to join this esteemed panel today. I am from the opposite end of research. I am a PhD student in my second year at Texas women's University. I have been a registered nurse for over 3334 years now. So I am new to the research project and the research process. But I am coming from the world of health and I've always been reading your journals, especially the health journals and the nursing journals, and I'm just starting out in publishing.
I plan to publish my first article at the end of this semester, and I Thank you for welcoming me today. OK, wonderful. It's great to have all of these panelists with us. And we thought we would start this session a little bit differently. While we do have some sort of prepared Q&A, and of course, we welcome questions from the audience.
What we're going to start with is a suite of what I call rapid fire questions. So these are going to be questions to our panelists where they can simply answer yes or no, or a one word answer with no elaboration, just to set the stage. And they agreed to this line of questioning. But the catch is, is that they do not know what questions are coming their way.
So I don't know what they're going to answer. Only two options. That's right. So OK. Question one and we'll start with Kristin and go down the line like we did with introductions. So question one yes or no. Do you post your research on preprint servers? Yes no.
No in faith. Not applicable just yet. Question two are you currently aware of all the funding for publishing fees that are provided by your institution? No yes. No and faith. No question three. What is one reason why you would choose to not publish in a journal you previously published in?
Two slow review time. If I didn't have a good experience with it. Earlier experience as well. Same same. And if they're reading population has gone down. OK question four. And we'll reverse the order here. So faith you'll be first. OK should chatgpt or any other large language model be listed as a co-author on a published manuscript?
Absolutely no. Questionable no. I think. Listed as a co co-author. Absolutely not. Acknowledged perhaps. As use. Yes no. OK same order for this one.
And this will be on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being not at all and 5 being very much. Do you think the publishing industry is trustworthy? I'm going to say I'm going to give it a three. Three five. Four OK. Mixed bag. And our final rapid fire question.
If you could pick one reason for choosing a journal to publish your research. What would that singular reason be? And faith, you can go first. Sure readership. Aims and scope. If I like the author, I mean if I like the articles and I'm familiar with the journal, but it's operated by a professional society.
OK, interesting. So with that, that's the end of our rapid fire. And I guess I'd really like to continue the conversation sort of on that last question. So again, this is how you select a journal to publish in or what drives you to continue publishing in that journal. So I'd like to maybe have each of you elaborate on your answers. And Donnie, why don't we start with you on this one?
Sure so for me, it's mainly the aims and scope that I'm kind of thinking about when I'm looking at publishing my dissertation research just because I want to make sure that it's going out to an audience that's going to be interested in what I'm talking about. And then I kind of consider the other things that you would normally look at, like whether or not it's open access, word limits, you know, other Mnuchin like that.
But if the aims and scope don't necessarily align with what I want to do, then I kind of set the I would set those journals aside and look for ones that have a better fit. John, how about you? So, you know, personally I'm less impressed or less concerned about impact factor and things like that. But I give a lot of talks to early career researchers, early career faculty.
And I always say, you know, follow journals, read the articles. If you if you like the journals, articles and, you know, tend to read most of them, then that's a good place to publish and faith. Why don't we go to you? I was going to say, as I'm thinking about the question being at the beginning, a novice researcher, I would what I'm going to do at the end of the semester is pick a journal that is, is within the nursing world and within nursing.
And then would it be a good fit for what I'm going to be attempting to publish? And Kristen, you had a different answer. So if you could elaborate, I did, and I wonder if the reaction was that I said the word operated, that it's operated by a professional society. I wonder if that just means something different that I didn't intend to mean, that it's really that it's associated with a professional society.
It's OK with me that Wiley operates the Au journals. Totally fine. BI Publisher in them. I've never submitted a manuscript to nature. I don't plan to. Science is maybe different because it's associated with the triple A's. But Yeah, I don't know. I don't need to pay $12,000 APC.
And if I do, it's definitely going to be to the triple A's. I don't know if there's anybody here from Springer Nature, but I think everybody you all move around so much. Everybody here has worked at Springer Nature or will one day. So there's my controversial take. OK does anyone in the audience have any comments or questions? Hi Yeah Tim Lloyd Livingston.
I'm really interested to hear what would you like back after something's been published that would indicate what the value of you choosing to either go with that particular journal or to choose that particular publish in terms of, you know, measuring the impact of that publishing. No just freeform. What do you what would you like back? Would anyone like to start?
I've never thought of that. It's once the article is published. That has always seemed like the end to me. And then how it does in terms of does it get citations or whatever? I guess I've never really seen that as something that anyone could control. But maybe now you're suggesting that the publisher could control that, and that would be pretty cool.
Yeah if you could boost it, tweet it, exit whatever they I don't know. Yeah go ahead John. Well, so a lot of my research and interests are around impact. And the impact of research and something that I've worked on for many years. And I think it was Jenny that mentioned that kind of dashboard I think. Yeah so that's something that, you know, kind of goes way back as well.
I've done some work on that. And I want to mention, especially so National Academies Press and Alphonse McDonald, I think more than 10 years ago, developed this great dashboard that you could look at an article or book and see where it's been mentioned, where it's been, you know, cited in Congress, mentioned in articles. Altmetrics bringing all this stuff together and that I think is the Holy Grail.
And, and a lot of that revolves around, you know, metadata at the front end, but then also, you know, measuring the impact at the end as well. Yeah I never really thought about that. I also kind of just assumed that after I submitted for publication, that's kind of it. And then I move on to something else. But to John's point there, I think kind of alternative metrics beyond, I guess just citations within the academic community would be quite valuable, especially because I'm working on something that's really policy engaged right now.
So having some kind of metric like that that engages with, you know, real world impact would be pretty motivating and extremely valuable kind of going forward that I could point to and say, hey, this might not have gained as much traction within this particular community, but more broadly, I can point to this. Right? and, faith, do you have anything to add?
I was just going to comment on John, Kristen and Donnie's answers. I agreed with them all. I've never thought of what happens after BI Publisher an article of once it's published. It's published and you hope that it gains traction. But I like the idea of it being disseminated to other health care communities that might find value in it as well.
And I do like the idea also, too, of boosting the publication of the article through different social media or media accounts. I think it sounds like us as publishers need to make this a little bit more visible to you as researchers, that we do these things. And Heather, you have a question here in the room. Yeah Hi. Heather Stevens from Delta pink.
A lot of the work that the various publishers are doing here is around the launching of new journals. Those new journals might be open. That's, you know, been a trend lately, but they might not be. What you would you consider publishing in a brand new journal? And if you would, what would be the kinds of things you would look for that might be similar to your publishing and your regular journals, but might be different?
What would it take you to convince to publish in a new journal? Because that's a lot of the conversations that we have with societies and publishers around New journals. My University asks me to do a lot of things for free, and I could be better at saying, what's my incentive? So I think that would be my question to you is, what is the incentive of taking a risk on a brand new journal?
I think that that would have to be made clear to me before I would kind of change my workflow and change my patterns. I think I've actually kind of encountered a situation like this where there was a new this is back when I was doing my master's, and there was a new open access geography journal that had just started called. If anybody's familiar. And because it was new at the time, my advisor actually changed our target journal from to the professional geographer in Canada, because that's a more well established journal.
And it would help with, you know, certain metrics like impact factor and stuff like that going down the line. So as a, I guess, you know, early career stage scholar, it would be I guess it would kind of go against what I've kind of been taught by my mentors as I've kind of, you know, worked through it all. So I think having a better idea of incentives and what this kind of new journal or new publishing environment would bring would definitely help weigh into those decisions, because of just how we're kind of taught to think about early career publications and the like.
When one of the phrases I use a lot with my students is dominate the niche. And I launched a journal as part of our graduate program in publishing, and it was based on a niche, which is ethics in publishing, which is kind of oddly broad and niche at the same time, and it has been a bit of a struggle getting submissions, honestly. But it was designed primarily to have students get experience managing a journal and to be able to publish their work, and also to publish work of everybody here.
So if you're interested in ethics and publishing, please do submit to us. But Yeah, it is a challenge to get, you know, awareness and interest in New journal. But again, I think it does run down to, you know, is it a new niche or niche and faith. What do you think about publishing in a brand new journal? I think it's best to leave that question to the fellow panelists who've published previously, and I am learning from all of their answers.
So thank you for that. Wonderful go ahead. We have one more question in the room. Hi, Laura Ritchie from Clark and Esposito. So in this discussion, we've been focusing a lot so far on the journals and publishing articles, and rightfully so. But I'm wondering if this group could speak a little bit about sharing other kinds of research outputs.
And here I'm thinking specifically about your data. So my questions for you are do you think about sharing your data? What do you think about sharing your data and why? Well, can I first say, you know, since you talking about journals, I'm kind of primarily a books person myself, but but I have published journal articles, so. And I published an open textbook.
There are a lot of different, a lot of different types of outputs. And then in terms of data. My own research hasn't used tons of data. It's been tending to be more qualitative. But but the article I mentioned is forthcoming and learned publishing hopefully soon with Jackie and Charles and Kate and others that did use a large data set that we got from many publishers, and we do plan to make that data open, a cleaned version of it.
Down here. Kristen, do you have anything to add? Yeah publishing data. Sharing data is great. I do small versions of that, like through GitHub for instance. Sharing larger data sets is just more difficult.
I am I want to do it. But it takes time to format and curate. I do use my university's institutional repository for that. It works reasonably well, handles large file sizes. But it just takes time. So I honestly don't really do it until the article is being published and it's a requirement.
For anything else to add, faith or donnie? No not really. A lot of my data sets are just FOIA requests and like publicly available stuff. I will add that, you know, earlier Kristen mentioned incentives. And I think if there are more incentives for sharing data, there would be more data sharing.
OK OK. Sounds good. The Zoom room. OK this question is from Christine. Have any of the panelists received solicitations from suspicious or predatory journals? How did you identify the red flags? Great question. Yeah, I you come to my inbox.
They're they're easy to identify. In my field, there are, you know, maybe 5 or 10 or 15 journals that we know publish in. The reputation is there. It's strong. And, you know, when the email comes from Mrs. Whatever whoever it's not it's they're easy to find for me.
So we haven't talked about the peer review side of things. But I do do some, you know, pretty frequently do peer review. And and I recently received a request to do peer review. And I thought it might be a predatory or suspicious journal. So I kind of had to hunt around for a while. But then I, I found that it, you know, it seemed to be legit. So so I did go ahead and it and it was but you know, I didn't just take it for granted.
In fact, my radar was kind of, I don't know, this journal. So I was thinking it was probably suspicious, but it wasn't. Was it simply just because you didn't recognize the journal? Or were there traits that were suspicious? Yeah, it was. It kind of had one of those suspicious kind of names, you know. And I wasn't familiar with it.
So, you know. So, Yeah. And from our early career researchers, Donny or faith, do you have any thoughts on this topic? Yeah so also get spam solicitation emails as well. And a lot of the time I kind of just confer with my advisors or somebody who's, you know, more senior in my department to just get an idea of, Oh, hey, this journal emailed me.
Have you ever heard of this before? It is a reputable that kind of deal. And just quick Google search as well. But you can kind of tell them apart again by like the domain name and things like that. Yeah faith do you have any comments? I was going to say the same thing. I'm surprised that as a student, I do get emails from predatory journals looking to find people to submit their manuscripts.
And as a student, I'm surprised that they could find me. But as well as my, my fellow scholars and my cohorts. But if something does come to my email and I am questioning it within the nursing department, we have a whole algorithm that we follow to research journals themselves to make sure that they're either predatory or they're trustworthy for our work. All right. We'll take one more question here in the room before moving on to topic, a different topic.
OK I think this can be quick. I, I enjoy a real broad variety of kinds of clients I deal with, and I want to bring something up, since this is specifically a researcher panel that is research organizations. I've had research organizations as clients from time to time. I have one right now, very active one. They're a completely different animal because one that I, the one I'm working with now doesn't publish in journals.
They're producing a report for the NIH or for the Department of Education, et cetera and that's and they make their money from the fees that they get paid by that agency that's sponsoring their research. But those are professional researchers. Those are PhD researchers just like you guys. Right and one that I client I had many years ago does a publish a journal.
In fact, it's an important journal in their field. And so I you know, I sat down early in my engagement talking to their CEO, and I said, well, you know, I presume that your primary audience is other researchers in your field. And she said, well, no, absolutely not. There may be third. I said, Oh well what are your main what is your main audience? She said policymakers, that's who we care about as policymakers.
And second to them is the public. And only third is maybe other researchers like us. I thought that might be of interest to people. Yeah, very much so. Any comments from our panelists? You might have been talking about one of my former employers. I'm not sure, but I did work for a dozen years at the Rand Corporation, and that was true of them.
They were primarily focused on policy makers. And and then, you know, secondly, the clients that hire them and then the public and then other researchers. All right. Let's move on to a different topic. John, you actually just brought this up, which is the topic of peer review.
And, you know, I'll ask the question, which type or model of peer review do each of our panelists think is the most effective or their preferred model? But I also just want to open this up as a more broad brush topic on peer review. You know, your experiences as an author, a reviewer, or an editor would be helpful to share. And John, since you brought up peer review, I'll let you go first.
OK well, it reminds me of a quote by attributed to Winston Churchill, but he was actually quoting others that democracy is the worst form of government except compared to all other forms of government. And so I would say with peer review, it's kind of similar, like double anonymous is probably the worst form except compared to other forms. So but I do think it's interesting to and important to experiment with other forms.
So I think experimentation but I don't think I've seen necessarily anything better than double anonymous. Yeah, double anonymous is kind of the go to for social sciences, humanities stuff I believe. And I like it. I like not knowing who's reading my work. And I like that they don't know my name.
But there are, I guess, certain situations where I've been part of a different kind of peer review, like special editions of journal, or like if there's a particular theme that's organized around, you know, the authors there, and then they're obviously going to know your work. And then there's kind of a more collaborative peer review process that goes into that. That was also pretty enjoyable.
But I don't know, there's kind of a trade off, I guess, because you don't get an overview outside of that immediate thematic group that you're working with so it can vary. And faith, I know haven't gone through peer review yet, but do you have any perspectives or thoughts? Not at this time. Thank you for asking them. Of course.
I think in my field we do not have a PR except for proposals where it's kind of under trial and it's I don't know, maybe I won't talk about proposals, but for manuscripts it's just single, blind. And so I don't know I don't know what's better. I have no experience in that. But something that Michelle said in her keynote yesterday, maybe she said it or maybe somebody else said it, I don't know, but it I totally agreed with it that reviews are scholarly outputs.
And so they ought to be out there. And so the idea of what is it? It's just open peer review, I think, is my description of the best model of peer review. One thing I do want to encourage or even command everybody in the room. And joining us online to participate as a peer reviewer. So, you know, most of you are participating in the process and often managing peer review.
But but do some peer review yourself. Volunteer as a peer reviewer. That's a great point. And Kristen, that might put you on the spot. But as an editor, a current editor, what's your experience with handling the peer review process? Oh, so, so broad? Do you want me to comment on finding soliciting reviewers or, you know, handling conflicting reviews or what's of interest?
Dealer's choice. I guess, Yeah. The peer review crisis has been a word that I've, I've heard from now. Now from time to time at this conference. And I have been hoping that we will talk about it because I, I need solutions. It's so hard to find peer reviewers who are qualified and who say yes and who have the time, the time to do it.
And I'm part of that problem. I told you in my introduction that I decline most peer reviews these days because I don't have the bandwidth to do it. Yeah, that's probably my biggest struggle as an editor is finding peer reviewers and doing so in a timely fashion. You know, the manuscript sits. It looks bad when it's sitting on the editor's desk, but that's where it sits, the longest, because, you know, you have to find peer reviewers.
And if I do it in batches of five, then I feel guilty when occasionally four of them do say yes and like, wow. And so I do it in batches of two. But then it takes forever. And then pretty soon I've hit the bottom of who I know that's out there in the field, and I spend so long on Google Scholar, like trying to find who else has even published in this area, who you know, might be able to contribute a peer review.
And can I add to the conversation of the peer review process? Just to add to John and Christine's point, part of our progress to get to dissertation one is that we must complete a competency of being a peer reviewer. So starting next week, myself and some of my cohorts are becoming peer reviewers and going through the training for some of the nursing journals.
But we cannot get to dissertation one unless we have satisfied a peer reviewing position for an academic journal within our PhD of nursing science program. Good that's extremely interesting because I guess it would probably vary by department, but there's not really much of an emphasis on being a peer reviewer in my experience as a, you know, master's student, PhD student, it's mainly about, OK, how do you identify a journal?
How do you publish? What venue are you going to consider? It's always around the output of knowledge rather than being a peer reviewer. So I think incorporating it into the training of scholars would be extremely beneficial going forward. And it would kind of help to address, you know, this peer review crisis that's going on because these are, you know, people in the fields coming up who have certain sets of expertise that they're cultivating, which they could apply as a reviewer.
And I never reviewed I haven't served as a peer reviewer yet. I'd love to, but I haven't been contacted by anybody yet. It is something that. Oh, sorry, John. No go ahead. What I was going to say is that a part of our program at Texas women's University is that they feel that they're solving two problems. One is add more peer reviewers to the population, and two, by reading quality manuscripts when you come across them and when you read them.
You're also learning as well from other scholarly pieces of information and other scholarly manuscripts. So Yeah, I was just going to add it is something that we do, and one of our courses at GW is, is have people do some peer review of papers and really emphasizing positive and constructive peer review. And how you do it. And it is a real eye opener for most students because most of them have never, never done it.
And, you know, to your point, you know, everybody wants their book or article peer reviewed. But no, almost nobody wants to do it. You know, just like everybody wants research published, but nobody wants to pay for it. So I have to I have to admit, if it wasn't one of the 13 competencies to move forward to dissertation one, I don't think I would have thought of it as an option, but it's mandatory for PhD and nursing students.
It's very interesting and Thank you for your transparency. Jackie, we have an online question. Yes, this question is for Kristin. When you say that qualified, you need qualified peer reviewers. Can you describe what a qualified peer reviewer is? One aspect. How early in the career are you willing to go? Yeah, they need disciplinary expertise and each paper needs, you know, two or maybe three reviewers.
And so maximum one of them is what I would feel comfortable being, you know, someone very early career who maybe even hasn't published something yet. But hopefully they've hopefully the other two reviewers I'm not even hopefully, I think I would feel I may have to bend more than this as time goes on, but now I am unyielding that you have to have published a paper in order to peer review.
And Yeah, I think having one person who hasn't is probably good for the diversity of the types of reviews that you get, because the reviews look different. I guess I want to do a follow up question to that for Donnie and faith. When you are hoping to have a peer review done, you know, would you be comfortable having all of your peer reviewers not have published before, or would you prefer that they had be more established?
Donnie, I don't know if you want to go first or you wanted me to go first. No, I was I was recoiling, thinking about, OK, so you can see. Yeah, I would say that I would be comfortable with the diversity, Kristin mentioned. I would love being a part of nursing science. I would like for my manuscript to not only teach a reviewer, but also maybe something that reviewer, as a novice researcher, is able to pick up something from my work that helps them become published, and then hopefully the cycle continues and they Pay It forward and become a reviewer themselves.
But I would feel more comfortable having someone as a novice reviewer, but also having people who have been published because you want to keep the journals that you're publishing in scholarly and scientific, and the way to produce that is to make sure that your work is checked by people who have been published and know what to look for in a quality piece of work.
Are you ready, donny? Yeah and I pretty much agree. I, I'm of the opinion kind of following Kristen's line where I probably would only want one person who's like an early career scholar, which is interesting to say as an early career scholar, just due to the fact that you'd want somebody with more expertise, time in the field, familiarity with the subject matter to kind of provide additional perspectives.
But I'd be comfortable having, you know, one of my three peer reviewers. Being an early stage scholar, I'd like to add just something kind of on the side to that. I think this is very context specific. If, if, if it's an article about cancer, I would want cancer researchers to be doing the review. But in many cases, I think it's appropriate for people outside the field to be doing review.
Not in every case, but I think many journals could benefit from getting people from tangential fields or other fields because, you know, in many cases, we do want to communicate to a wider audience. And part of the problem of scholarly literature, in my opinion, is it tends to be too hyper focused to that, you know, that community and should be clearer and easier to understand for more. So I think, you know, one thing people can do to solve that crisis of peer reviewers is to look to related fields or other fields.
It kind of sounds like robbing Peter to pay Paul, though, right? Because your reviewers are overtaxed and your discipline too. So if I start, you know, going into there. We'll leave it at that one. We have a question over here in the room. Doctor Sarah Wright from the American Veterinary Medical Association.
I'm an associate editor and also an aquatic animal health researcher. I've authored and co-authored around 10 peer reviewed articles and for our journals. We have had massive success with finding peer reviewers recently due to several changes that we made. So I'd say 90% of the time I have reviewers assigned and accept within 36 hours of me having the manuscript in my hands, and I do that by casting a wide net like you guys are talking about.
And veterinary medicine. We do have this bottleneck where people are typically only inviting their friends to review, or they're inviting that one dolphin researcher that they know is going to give them a good review. But you have to cast a wide net. Otherwise, you're overburdening the people that are reviewing for all the journals on the same topic.
So I typically invite 6 to 10 reviewers, and sometimes you do have more that accept that you need. But I do want to invite them, and I think only 3% of the time do they have a problem with that. And if they do have a problem, I say email me your comments. I'll pass it along to the associate editor. We also offer continuing education credits to for our reviewers. So reviewer recognition and rewarding.
I understand we're a medical field, so that's very discipline specific, but that has definitely been great for us. Even people that don't need to see, they say, hey, Thanks for the acknowledgment. It just feels good. And I've heard that too, from other veterinary journals that I also sometimes help out with. And we also have a scientific review board that we implemented as well.
These individuals have to review six manuscripts per year, and then they get a certificate that they can use for promotion, et cetera we also recognize our top reviewers every year and we have a student peer reviewer training program where they are paired with a experienced reviewer and they learn how to review articles. So we do use some of the training out there. I think specifically the Elsevier training we use, and then they have the experience of co reviewing with an experienced person.
And then hopefully the goal is to have them be the next generation of reviewers. So we do need to support our early career researchers and turn them into reviewers and instill the importance of peer review, because that's definitely a deficit that we're seeing, at least in the veterinary side of things right now. Thank you for the comment.
Sure Thanks, Joel. Silver so we had presentation yesterday that we should think about the scholarly publishing process in a different way. So right now we have peer review and then we have sort of publish. Right there was this notion that we should flip that. So we should publish and then peer review. So my question to you is and you're at different stages in your career.
So I'm interested on your perspective on this. Is that would you publish first, and then go to peer review? Is that something you would undertake? And how do you think that would help or hinder your career? Well I can clarify if it's confusing. No, I think my takeaway from, from that part of the discussion yesterday was that that's basically here. Right?
the preprint goes up. You make it something that you're proud of. You probably haven't thought of everything. And that's what, the review will help you. What was the word? Maybe it was curate, but I don't think it was. But it'll help you make your manuscript better until it ultimately gets published. Published I'm totally comfortable with that.
And I think that's increasingly common for the model now. Am I right? Well, the subtlety they were suggesting is that it's not that you were pre printing and then publishing that you were publishing and then peer review. So what those articles that you're publishing now, you would just publish them and then it would go to peer review in an open fashion. So there would be no going to the journal and going through it.
So it was completely flipped. I think it's like I said, with democracy, it's, you know, it sounds good, sounds plausible and good. In reality, I don't think it's workable and certainly not scalable. The problem is that and I've seen experimentation on this. One of the first people I saw that tried this was Bob Stein. But it's, you know, articles that would get a lot of attention would probably go through that process.
Others might get none. And then what do you do after, you know, if you publish? And then there's, let's say, hundreds people reviewing it, then you're going to like redo it and republish. I just don't think it's workable. It's good to experiment with stuff like that though. It'd be interesting if my field started to embrace the preprint kind of modeling, because we don't really do preprints at all.
It's always just, OK, we're going to submit it off for peer review. There's no real thought to kind of inverting the order like you're talking about. And I think it would be a bit of a struggle just because kind of what Jon mentioned, where it would just be so open that you'd receive so much solicitation about what you're saying, or claims that you're making, or argumentation that you're making, that it would kind of collapse in on itself later on.
I just want to make a quick comment. I think it was the new elife model that they're really talking about. Is it OK? Can I get you a quick question online, very practical. Yes what kinds of AI machine learning specifically not Gen. I would you recommend or find helpful with your reviews? This is a great question because it tied into the next question that we were going to discuss, but we're short on time, so please take this question.
It's hard for me to know how AI that's not generative I would be involved in the review process. But I can tell you that one of my graduate students who's closest to submitting this paper, hopefully this semester is Yeah, her thesis is going to be machine learning as sort of a numeric analyzer rather than generative.
So she analyzes satellite images to find specific patterns. And that's all machine learning. And then she's writing the manuscript hopefully with her own fingers. But every once in a while I see some sentences in her Google Doc that are like, I don't think you wrote that. But OK, I've gotten on a tangent. Donny or faith or john?
Any thoughts on ai? I'm extremely weary of it in a publication context, just because of. Well, at least there were issues with, I guess, more generative AI models where they were, at least in the initial phase, you know, making up citations that didn't exist or something like that. And this is probably more of a tangent, but I used it as kind of a teaching tool where I asked my first year students in my writing seminar to give the essay prompt to chatgpt, and then we'd edit the essay that chatgpt wrote on the topic together in class and point out what it did right, what it should improve on, and things like that.
But in terms of peer review, I would not really feel comfortable with the I being a part of that process. Faith, do you have any thoughts to share about I and peer review or otherwise? I wouldn't feel comfortable either if I was peer reviewing one of my manuscripts, because within our program, our professors make us more afraid of using AI, because if they find that AI is used too much in any of our papers, or if it's used too much as an adjunct and we don't cite it properly, it could be cause for dismissal from our program, using it to rewrite something that we wrote within a couple of sentences.
That's fine, but for peer reviewing or too much of AI, we're really warned against it within our PhD program. Yeah, I think I would underscore that. And I think I see one difference between. Universities and you know, they play such an important value. Rightly so, I think on original thought and the nurturing of your own ideas and the development of them out of your own brain, that it's actually a bit different from the vibe I've gotten in this room, which is like, you know, Yeah, let's use chatgpt to write that end of the day email and just get it, you know, just get things done.
Yeah it's so again, you know, my graduate programs in publishing program and I have been encouraging my students, at least for the past couple of years, to be using and experimenting with AI. I don't necessarily make it a requirement. I do encourage them to use different tools, use them conscientiously, and acknowledge when they're used. I personally I've been following or looking or Yeah, reading about AI since 2005, I guess.
And I, you know, I just think it's inevitable that we all need to know how to use it. David Samson mentioned perplexity. If you haven't used that, try that out. I've been using deepl. There's a lot of tools out there that are helpful. And, you know, again, as publishers, we all need to be familiar with them. One of, if I may piggyback on to John's response, one of the reasons the nursing schools and the colleges of Nursing are moving away from AI is because new graduates are not embracing critical thinking, because of the use of too much AI and too much technology, that they're not developing that sense of knowingness when it comes to seeing their patients.
They're relying too much on computer generated information. So the lost skill of critical thinking, of synthesizing information, of putting different pieces of a patient's appearance, vital signs, health signs, medications, preexisting preexisting conditions. If you lose that ability to synthesize information, you're going to miss telltale signs with your patient that something might be going wrong, or there could be a mistake made.
So the colleges of Nursing are moving away from using AI to do our job for us, because it is minimizing emerging nurses, being able to think critically and synthesize information. I think that is a critical danger that we all have to be cognizant of. And, you know, I think it's been mentioned many times, you know, humans in the loop. And one of my friends, Barbara Kline pope, she says a lot, you know, you have to have a human in the loop at the beginning and at the end.
So I don't think it replaces critical thinking necessarily, but the danger is certainly there. I see an analogy with the airlines, not the airlines. With with flying an autopilot. When autopilot was introduced and became quite a thing, crashes went up and the severity of crashes went up. And it was because the pilots did not have that mundane training hour after hour with their hands on the rudder to get the feel of the aircraft.
And so when they had to take over in stressful situations, they weren't as adequately trained up. And that's what I worry about with my graduate students' minds. And, you know, other people in Faith's program, for instance, these are very, very valuable insights. And we've actually gone all the way to the end of our session with that. I think it flew by.
But I do want to ask our panelists one closing rapid fire question. And that's basically if you could summarize in one word how you are currently feeling about publishing. How would you do that? Faith how about you go first? Are you going to pick me first? In all honesty and transparency, intimidated? I think that makes sense.
For early career. I was so myself amped. Publishing is great. It's how we get the word out. All right, Donnie, how about you? Optimistic wonderful. And, John, the closer. Can I use more than one word? If you must.
I'd like to say publishing is a stable landscape of continuous change. Excellent all right, well, with that, let's give our panelists round of applause.
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