Abstract

The Alternative Funding Mechanism for APC-free Open Access journals and platforms implemented by the European Commission FP7 Post-Grant Open Access (OA) Pilot are described. This funding initiative, rolled out by the OpenAIRE project, aims to test the workflows around gold OA publishing, for titles that do not charge processing fees to their authors. The funding consists on specific technical improvements, according to plans proposed by journals and approved in previously selected bids. The main areas where these technical enhancements are being implemented are listed.

Abstract

With the recent launch of a number of F1000-based open research platforms, research funders like Wellcome Trust, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Irish Health Research Board are stepping up their attempt to shift the scholarly publishing landscape into a more suitable environment for the implementation of their open science policies. Weeks ago, the European Commission released the call for bids for its Open Research Europe, thus joining this potentially game-changing move towards open peerreview, article-level metrics, pre-prints, and tighter control of publishing by Academia. This text examines the various objectives of these platforms and argues that this well-aimed move may not succeed if it fails to persuade researchers of the value of such publishing outlets. There is a clear role for institutions, whose open science advocacy strategies towards their authors can be adjusted to include the dissemination and promotion of such platforms.

Abstract

In 2006 Hwang’s fraudulent papers published in Science on stem cell research re-opened the debate on scientific misconduct. Taking this as a starting point, some reflections are put forward on the dimension of fraud in science. The singularity of Hwang’s case, due to its scientific, social and media impact, is examined as a consequence of the persuasion mechanisms systematised in the so-called Routes of Scholarly Lying. Furthermore, the reasons for publishing fraudulent research, the inefficiency of peer review for detecting it, and the various mechanisms for managing and eradicating it, are presented.

Abstract

The presence of ethical guidelines in the instructions for authors and reviewers from 214 journals indexed in the Education and Educational Research category of the 2014 edition of the Journal Citation Reports is analyzed. Content and thematic analysis methodology has been followed to examine the presence of topics regarding ethics of scholarly publishing and research. According to the results, 11.2% of the analyzed journals do not include mentions of any ethical topic and the presence of the various subjects studied differs among the rest. The most frequent are criteria for determining plagiarism (63.01%) and duplicate publication (67.12%). Ethical responsibilities of reviewers (7.76%) and sanctions for misconduct (3.20%) have a low presence.

Abstract

The open access (OA) movement has exploded in the last few years. In 2016 we invited 1,896 researchers based in Spanish institutions to fill in a survey on their opinion, attitudes and practices towards OA. We analysed the 554 responses received from researchers in all fields of knowledge (29% response ratio). Most researchers are aware of OA outlets in their fields (86%) and believe OA is beneficial (76%). There isn’t a clear position on the quality of OA journals among Spain-based researchers and there are differences between disciplines. Almost 70% of researchers have published at least one OA article in the last 5 years. Half of them had to pay article processing charges (APCs) that were covered with research funds.

Abstract

This letter is a call to the Spanish scientific authorities to abandon current research evaluation policies, which are based on an excessive and indiscriminate use of bibliometric indicators for nearly all areas of scientific activity. This narrow evaluation focus is especially applied to assess the individual performance of researchers. To this end, we first describe the contexts in which the journal impact factor (JIF) and other bibliometric indicators are being used. We then consider the toxic effects of this abuse of indicators. Finally, we outline some significant transformations and initiatives being introduced in various academic fields and regions of the world. These international initiatives offer alternatives to bibliometrics that can improve evaluation processes, and we urge political leaders in Spain to adopt and develop them.