Author-Reviewer Homophily in Peer Review, bioRxiv, 2018-08-29

AbstractThe fairness of scholarly peer review has been challenged by evidence of disparities in publication outcomes based on author demographic characteristics. To assess this, we conducted an exploratory analysis of peer review outcomes of 23,876 initial submissions and 7,192 full submissions that were submitted to the biosciences journal eLife between 2012 and 2017. Women and authors from nations outside of North America and Europe were underrepresented both as gatekeepers (editors and peer reviewers) and authors. We found evidence of a homophilic relationship between the demographics of the gatekeepers and authors and the outcome of peer review; that is, there were higher rates of acceptance in the case of gender and country homophily. The acceptance rate for manuscripts with male last authors was seven percent, or 3.5 percentage points, greater than for female last authors (95% CI = [0.5, 6.4]); this gender inequity was greatest, at nine percent or about 4.8 percentage points (95% CI = [0.3, 9.1]), when the team of reviewers was all male; this difference was smaller and not significantly different for mixed-gender reviewer teams. Homogeny between countries of the gatekeeper and the corresponding author was also associated with higher acceptance rates for many countries. To test for the persistence of these effects after controlling for potentially confounding variables, we conducted a logistic regression including document and author metadata. Disparities in acceptance rates associated with gender and country of affiliation and the homophilic associations remained. We conclude with a discussion of mechanisms that could contribute to this effect, directions for future research, and policy implications. Code and anonymized data have been made available at <jatsext-link xmlnsxlink=httpwww.w3.org1999xlink ext-link-type=uri xlinkhref=httpsgithub.commurraydselife-analysis>httpsgithub.commurraydselife-analysis<jatsext-link>Author summaryPeer review, the primary method by which scientific work is evaluated, is ideally a fair and equitable process in which scientific work is judged solely on its own merit. However, the integrity of peer review has been called into question based on evidence that outcomes often differ between male and female authors, and for authors in different countries. We investigated such disparities at the biosciences journal eLife by analyzing the demographics of authors and gatekeepers (editors and peer reviewers), and peer review outcomes of all submissions between 2012 and 2017. Outcomes were more favorable for male authors and those affiliated with institutions in North America and Europe; these groups were also over-represented among gatekeepers. There was evidence that peer review outcomes were influenced by homophily —a preference of gatekeepers for manuscripts from authors with shared characteristics. We discuss mechanisms that could contribute to this effect, directions for future research, and policy implications.

biorxiv scientific-communication-and-education 500+-users 2018

Career Choice, Gender, and Mentor Impact Results of the U.S. National Postdoc Survey, bioRxiv, 2018-06-26

AbstractThe postdoctoral community is an essential component of the academic and scientific workforce. As economic and political pressures impacting these enterprises continue to change, the postdoc experience has evolved from short, focused periods of training into often multidisciplinary, extended positions with less clear outcomes. As efforts are underway to amend U.S. federally funded research policies, the paucity of postdoc data has made evaluating the impact of policy recommendations challenging. Here we present comprehensive survey results from over 7,600 postdocs based at 351 academic and non-academic U.S. institutions in 2016. In addition to demographic and salary information, we present multivariate analyses on the factors that influence postdoc career plans and mentorship satisfaction in this population. We further analyze gender dynamics and expose wage disparities and career choice differences. Academic research positions remain the predominant career choice of postdocs in the U.S., although unequally between postdocs based on gender and residency status. Receiving mentorship training during the postdoctoral period has a large, positive effect on postdoc mentorship satisfaction. Strikingly, the quality of and satisfaction with postdoc mentorship appears to also heavily influence career choice. The data presented here are the most comprehensive data on the U.S. postdoc population to date. These results provide an evidence basis for informing government and institutional policies, and establish a critical cornerstone for quantifying the effects of future legislation aimed at the academic and scientific workforce.

biorxiv scientific-communication-and-education 200-500-users 2018

Analysis and Correction of Inappropriate Image Duplication The Molecular and Cellular Biology Experience, bioRxiv, 2018-06-24

AbstractThe present study analyzed 960 papers published in Molecular and Cellular Biology (MCB) from 2009-2016 and found 59 (6.1%) to contain inappropriately duplicated images. The 59 instances of inappropriate image duplication led to 42 corrections, 5 retractions and 12 instances in which no action was taken. Our experience suggests that the majority of inappropriate image duplications result from errors during figure preparation that can be remedied by correction. Nevertheless, ~10% of papers with inappropriate image duplications in MCB were retracted. If this proportion is representative, then as many as 35,000 papers in the literature are candidates for retraction due to image duplication. The resolution of inappropriate image duplication concerns after publication required an average of 6 h of journal staff time per published paper. MCB instituted a pilot program to screen images of accepted papers prior to publication that identified 12 manuscripts (14.5% out of 83) with image concerns in two months. The screening and correction of papers before publication required an average of 30 min of staff time per problematic paper. Image screening can identify papers with problematic images prior to publication, reduces post-publication problems and requires significantly less staff time than the correction of problems after publication.

biorxiv scientific-communication-and-education 100-200-users 2018

FAIRsharing, a cohesive community approach to the growth in standards, repositories and policies, bioRxiv, 2018-01-18

AbstractIn this modern, data-driven age, governments, funders and publishers expect greater transparency and reuse of research data, as well as greater access to and preservation of the data that supports research findings. Community-developed standards, such as those for the identification1 and reporting2 of data, underpin reproducible and reusable research, aid scholarly publishing, and drive both the discovery and evolution of scientific practice. The number of these standardization efforts, driven by large organizations or at the grass root level, has been on the rise since the early 2000s. Thousands of community-developed standards are available (across all disciplines), many of which have been created andor implemented by several thousand data repositories. Nevertheless, their uptake by the research community, however, has been slow and uneven. This is mainly because investigators lack incentives to follow and adopt standards. The situation is exacerbated if standards are not promptly implemented by databases, repositories and other research tools, or endorsed by infrastructures. Furthermore, the fragmentation of community efforts results in the development of arbitrarily different, incompatible standards. In turn, this leads to standards becoming rapidly obsolete in fast-evolving research areas.As with any other digital object, standards, databases and repositories are dynamic in nature, with a ‘life cycle’ that encompasses formulation, development and maintenance; their status in this cycle may vary depending on the level of activity of the developing group or community. There is an urgent need for a service that enhances the information available on the evolving constellation of heterogeneous standards, databases and repositories, guides users in the selection of these resources, and that works with developers and maintainers of these resources to foster collaboration and promote harmonization. Such an informative and educational service is vital to reduce the knowledge gap among those involved in producing, managing, serving, curating, preserving, publishing or regulating data. A diverse set of stakeholders-representing academia, industry, funding agencies, standards organizations, infrastructure providers and scholarly publishers— both national and domain-specific as well global and general organizations— have come together as a community, representing the core adopters, advisory board members, andor key collaborators of the FAIRsharing resource. Here, we introduce its mission and community network. We present an evaluation of the standards landscape, focusing on those for reporting data and metadata - the most diverse and numerous of the standards - and their implementation by databases and repositories. We report on the ongoing challenge to recommend resources, and we discuss the importance of making standards invisible to the end users. We report on the ongoing challenge to recommend resources, and we discuss the importance of making standards invisible to the end users. We present guidelines that highlight the role each stakeholder group must play to maximize the visibility and adoption of standards, databases and repositories.

biorxiv scientific-communication-and-education 100-200-users 2018

 

Created with the audiences framework by Jedidiah Carlson

Powered by Hugo