Quantcast
Channel: Editage Insights
Viewing all 4754 articles
Browse latest View live

Hindawi partners with Editage to provide English-language editing services

$
0
0
Hindawi partners with Editage to provide English-language editing services

Hindawi Publishing Corporation and Editage have announced a new partnership that will provide English-language editing to authors wishing to submit to Hindawi publications. 

September 26, 2016 (Philadelphia, PA, USA) – Hindawi Publishing Corporation and Editage today announced a new partnership that will provide English-language editing to authors wishing to submit to Hindawi publications. This partnership will result in Editage’s services being integrated into Hindawi’s submission process and also provide a 10% discount to Hindawi authors.

Craig Raybould, Chief Process Engineer of Hindawi, said, "These pre-submission manuscript preparation services will help authors, particularly those for whom English is not their first language. Editage’s services can help authors craft well-written manuscripts ready for journal submission by linking them to a panel of highly qualified and experienced publication experts who provide subject-relevant editing, translation, and formatting support. We are also pleased that this partnership provides a financial benefit in the form of a 10% discount to our authors who want to use these services.”

Nikesh Gosalia, Director, Publisher and Academic Relations at Editage, said “Editage is proud to partner with Hindawi Publishing Corporation. At Editage, we pay close attention to the subject matter of a manuscript and make it our mission to support the author through a variety of services geared at optimizing the potential for publication success. We look forward to assisting Hindawi authors achieve their publication goals.”

More information can be found at http://hindawi.editage.com/.

About Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Hindawi Publishing Corporation (http://www.hindawi.com) is a publisher of peer-reviewed open access journals covering a wide range of academic disciplines. Founded in 1997, Hindawi employs more than 700 people in its Cairo and London offices and publishes more than 20,000 open access articles per year.


The challenges and needs of early career professionals: An overview of SSP's survey

$
0
0
An overview of SSP’s survey

Early career professionals face various challenges while trying to carve a successful career path for themselves. To understand their requirements and problems and help them overcome those, the Society for Scholarly Publishing conducted a survey that focused on areas relating to industry experience, professional development, and organizational benefits. This post shares some of the most significant findings of the survey.

The academic world is highly competitive, and early career professionals face various challenges while trying to carve a successful career path for themselves. These professionals are the future of academia; therefore, it is important that members of the industry understand their requirements and problems and help them overcome those.

Taking steps in this direction, the Society for Scholarly Publishing (SSP) – a nonprofit organization that promotes and advances communication among all sectors of the scholarly publication community – conducted a survey for professionals in scholarly publishing who have less than ten years of experience. The main intent behind the survey was to provide a platform for early career professionals to voice their concerns and share with the community what they need to grow professionally.

The Early Career Subcommittee, a subset of the SSP’s Professional Development Committee, rolled out a 34-question survey to which 507 participants responded. The average age of the respondents was 30 years and as many as 40% had an experience ranging from 2-5 years. The survey questions focused on areas relating to industry experience, professional development, and organizational benefits. The results were shared at SSP’s 38th Annual Meeting in Vancouver in June, 2016, under the title “Sharing the Future Voices…” Some of the most significant findings are:

1. 46% of EPCs reported that their most formidable challenge was “finding the right role.” The other two top-ranking concerns were “finding the right career path” as stated by 42% and “finding the right organization,” which was highlighted by 33% of the respondents. These apprehensions were common across disciplines, indicating the lack of career guidance and resources offering career-related information.

2.  Do ECPs have clear ideas about the kind of position they want? According to the survey, 40% found a position of interest either by coincidence or because the job search engine displayed openings that matched their skillset. Only 26.2% of EPCs said that they always had an interest in a publishing related career.     

3. Although social media and online platforms offer a lot of industry related information, surprisingly, these were not the ECPs’ primary information resources. 78% of the respondents mentioned that they turned to their colleagues and peers for resources and information. Of the social media channels that they reported using, LinkedIn, Twitter, and Facebook ranked among the top three.       

4. The ECPs found webinars among the most useful ways of learning and keeping in touch with the industry happenings. 69% of ECPs have reportedly attended at least one industry related webinar, and 72% said that their employers funded for their industry meetings and other networking events, which is heartening. However, on the other hand, more employers should provide training for employees who are in the early phase of their career.

5. While management training and training related to networking are vital to career progression, only 32% of employers offered “ongoing training about industry trends;” one in five employers offered management training; and only 6% offered networking training according to the respondents.

Early career professionals have a lot to cope up with and do not receive enough support from their employers and mentors. Matt Cooper, co-chair of the SSP's Early Career Task Force, says, “In the day-to-day workplace of an early career professional in scholarly communication, the broader development and education of these individuals can often be overlooked.” To ensure a brighter future of scholarly publishing and scholarly communication, more focus should be placed on making the next generation of scholars more equipped to progress in their careers with minimal challenges. 

Bad peer review leads to repeated rejections: A case study

$
0
0
Negative peer review leads to rejection

What happens when the same reviewer reviews your paper every time you submit and ruins the chances of its acceptance? Read on to find out.

Case: An author’s paper was rejected by a journal after peer review. On receiving reviewer comments, the author was surprised to see that while two of the three reviewers seemed to be happy with the overall quality of the paper and had suggested minor revisions, Reviewer #3 had given extremely negative comments, stating that the paper was of very poor quality. According to this reviewer, the paper lacked novelty, needed more experiments and language editing, and was not publishable in its current form. The author revised the manuscript thoroughly, addressing every concern of the reviewers, including Reviewer #3 and also had it professionally edited.

He then re-submitted the paper to the same journal as a new submission. However, the paper was rejected again, and the reviewer comments were similar to those received during the first submission. While two reviewers gave very positive comments and were clearly happy with the paper, the Reviewer #3 gave extremely negative comments, finding multiple flaws with the manuscript and recommending rejection. The author, who was keen on publishing his paper in the journal and had spent a lot of time and effort revising the paper, was very upset and approached Editage Insights for advice.

Action: On going through the reviewer comments, our experts felt that many of Reviewer #3’s comments, particularly for the second submission, were unreasonable. What is more, there were similarities in the writing style of both reviewers, indicating that Reviewer #3 was the same both times. We advised the author to appeal against the editorial decision, providing a point-by-point rebuttal refuting the comments of Reviewer #3 and providing supporting evidence for each point. We also asked the author to request the Editor to change Reviewer #3 if the paper was sent for another round of  peer review.

The editor replied within a few days stating that the paper has been sent for re-review, and this time, to a completely new set of reviewers. Once the author received the peer reviewer comments, he was happy to see that all the reviewers had approved of the paper, suggesting only a few minor revisions. Once these revisions were incorporated, the paper was finally accepted!

The editor later communicated to the author that she had received similar complaints about this reviewer from several other authors, and had therefore decided to remove him from her list.

Summary: Most journals have a clear policy and process for appeals, and all appeals are dealt with under this process. If an author strongly feels that the decision about his or her manuscript has not been correct, he or she has the right to appeal against this decision. Usually, the process for appeals is more rigorous than that for a regular submission. An appeal is assigned to multiple editors who assess the manuscript, the peer review reports/comments, and the author’s rebuttal before providing their individual comments on it.  The editors then discuss their views and arrive at a consensus about the paper. If the editors feel the need for a re-evaluation, they can send the paper for another round of review. Thus, the appeals process is usually very rigorous and fair.

There is a general misconception among authors that appeals do not work; however, if the case is strong enough and the author is able to provide a strong and objective rebuttal with supporting data or evidence for every point they are refuting, editors will definitely give it a fair chance.

However, this does not mean that every time an author gets a rejection, he or she should appeal against the editorial decision. This is a special benefit that journals provide, and should be used with the utmost discretion. If an author genuinely feels that the evaluation has been unfair, he or she should first take the opinion of a supervisor, senior colleague, or some other expert to confirm that his or her judgment has been correct. Appeals should be made only if the case is very strong. Additionally, authors should maintain a polite and objective tone in their communication and refrain from using accusatory or emotional language.

You might also like to read the following articles:

Introduction to The Chicago Manual of Style and Scientific Style and Format

$
0
0

The Chicago Manual of Style is commonly used by authors writing academic manuscripts as it contains detailed guidelines on various aspects of writing as well as language and grammar. This video, prepared and presented by The University of Chicago Press, is an introduction to The Chicago Manual of Style. It is geared toward writers, students, librarians, businesses, and anyone interested in using the Manual to support their work. First, it gives a general overview of the Manual and explains how you can use it. Next, it introduces the online version of the Manual and talks about another online resource, Scientific Style and Format Online. Finally, the video provides information on how you can try out The Chicago Manual of Style Online or Scientific Style and Format Online for free.

Also refer to these resources on the Chicago Manual of Style and Scientific Style and Format.

 

How researchers can increase the visibility of their work with social media

$
0
0
How researchers can increase the visibility of their work with social media

Publishing your research in scholarly journals is important, but what may be even more important is getting the scientific information into everyday communication streams, that is, social media. This editorial outlines how best to move your scholarly work into social media outlets and how to track your success in a social media world.

This post was created for the Wolters-Kluwer author newsletter Author Resource Review and has been reproduced with permission.

It has been co-authored by:

Jacqueline McGrath, M. PhD, RN, FNAP, FAAN

Debra Brandon, PhD, RN, CCNS, FAAN

Co-editors, Advances in Neonatal Care

Publishing your research in scholarly journals is important, but what may be even more important is getting the scientific information into everyday communication streams. Today that is social media. This article outlines how best to move your scholarly work into social media outlets and how to track your success in a social media world.

Increasing the visibility of your work with social media. First, you will need an account in a social media network. If you are going to use the account for both professional and personal postings, be sure to ponder your audience. You might want to consider having 2 separate accounts, one for your personal use and one for your professional use. You might also want to consider how you will title your account and whom you will invite to be your friends (whom you are connected to) within each account. Each account might have different followers, and possibly the followers could be overlapping depending on the types of contact you have with them. Once you have an account, you can begin by making thoughtful posts 2 to 3 times each week. For example, if your research or clinical expertise is related to family-centered care, you can post breaking findings around the topic as they occur. Of your 3 weekly posts, one should be related to your own work and the other 2 should bring in the latest research or clinical practices from other teams. In this way, you can begin a conversation around your topic. Additions from other teams can be found by checking Google Alerts or the table of contents of your favorite journals. If you use the journal Web site, the site often has a sharing link with each article that connects to social media sites so that you can easily post the information. (see picture below)

Default Alt text

Sharing your published article can now easily be done right from your article page; on the right side of the page is a share section where if you are logged into Facebook (for example), you can choose to “like” the article and it will be shared on your own Facebook page.

If you use this means for posting, be sure to link the post to your Web page. Once you decide what information you want to post, be sure to add a sentence or two that tells readers why they would want to look into getting more information about this topic. You will want to be intentional about your posting, so take the time to reflect about the story you are trying to tell or the message you want readers to get from checking out your page.

Tracking the success of your scholarly work in social media. Tracking the uptake of your work is not just about checking your social media site to see how many “likes” and comments you have received about your post. Tracking is also about how your post is shared, and hopefully shared again, and again. Wolters Kluwer, the publisher for Advances in Neonatal Care and many other scholarly journals, has adapted Altmetrics as a social network tracking strategy for following how individual articles published in its journals are being viewed on social networking sites. See below for where to find the Altmetrics widget on your published article page on the Advances in Neonatal Care website. 

Default Alt text

Click on the altmetrics circle and you get this screen:

Default Alt text

The Altmetrics widget shows you how your work is being shared on different social networks. You will be able to see a summary of the impact of your work in a social media world, with a list of where it has been shared and how many times it has been shared or commented on by others. You can even click on the widget to get more details about exactly where and by whom your article has been shared and whether there are comments about your work. We encourage you to post your own work and get comments to increase the visibility and impact of your work in a social media world.

This is an excerpt from a journal article, with images added. McGrath, Jacqueline M. PhD, RN, FNAP, FAAN; Brandon, Debra PhD, RN, CCNS, FAAN. “Scholarly Publication and Social Media: Do They Have Something in Common?” Advances in Neonatal Care. August 2016 - Volume 16 - Issue 4 - p 245–248. doi: 10.1097/ANC.0000000000000319

 

Sucralose and cancer not linked, a study says

$
0
0
Sucralose and cancer not linked, a study says

Sucralose is the choice of no-calorie sweetener for those who wish to keep their weight in check. However, many people have raised questions about how safe it is to consume sucralose and whether it is carcinogenic. To understand the impact of sucralose on the human body, researchers at the University of London reviewed existing studies that assessed sucralose carcinogenicity potential. The researchers found that the findings of most of these studies were based on sucralose dosages that were hundreds to thousands of times greater than the reasonable level of consumption. For instance, for an average adult weighing 75 kg, some studies calculated the effect of sucralose consumption in quantities equivalent in sweetness to 74 to 495 pounds of sugar per day. However, the Joint Food and Agricultural Organization/World Health Organization Expert Committee on Food Additives recommend the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) for sucralose as 0 to 15 mg/kg body weight/day. In the ADI recommended levels or even at levels slightly greater than that, the researchers did not find a link between sucralose and cancer. This study was funded by McNeil Nutritionals (creator of Splenda, since sold to Heartland Food Products).   

Read more in Science Daily.          

Researchers confirm the universe is expanding uniformly

$
0
0
Researchers confirm the universe is expanding uniformly

Cosmologists’ standard model of the universe assumes that the universe expands identically in all directions. A team of researchers at the University College London and Imperial College London proved this theory to be correct by studying the cosmic microwave background (CMB), which is the Big Bang’s remnant radiation. Using the measurements of the CMB taken by the European Space Agency's Planck satellite between 2009 and 2013, which provides information about the polarization of the CMB, they were able to understand in depth about the early universe. With the help of this, they created several spinning and stretching models, and checked for any signs of stretching and cold and hot spots in the CMB, which would indicate how the space is expanding. They compared this data with the real map of the space from the Planck satellite and came to the conclusion that the universe expands in all directions uniformly. "We're very glad that our work vindicates what most cosmologists assume. For now, cosmology is safe," says Daniela Saadeh, the lead author of the study.

Read more in Science Daily.     

Tom Pacific

$
0
0
Tom Pacific
Tom Pacific is the current Publisher for Medicine® and works closely on the open access program at Wolters Kluwer.

Tom Pacific is the current Publisher for Medicine® and works closely on the open access program at Wolters Kluwer.  In this role he oversees the daily operations of Medicine® including the implementation of editorial policies and journal development.  Tom joined Wolters Kluwer in 2010 as a Publishing Assistant after graduating from Rutgers University. Prior to becoming the Publisher of Medicine® he served as the Associate Publisher for the Pathology portfolio and helped develop the open access hybrid program at Wolters Kluwer.


Jayashree Rajagopalan

$
0
0
Jayashree Rajagopalan
Jayashree Rajagopalan is a Senior Writer & Editor at Editage Insights

Jayashree works on creating alternative resources about scholarly publishing such as videos, infographics, or SlideShares. She also conducts interview for the Industry Experts section on Editage Insights—the author education portal of Editage—and manages the social media platforms of Editage Insights. In a previous avatar as an academic editor at Editage, she gained a first-hand understanding of the publication needs of and challenges faced by academic authors. She also gained some experience training remote academic editors on various aspects of academic editing and writing as well as conducted a webinar on open access.

Congratulations to the "Sentinels of Science"!

$
0
0
Publons' Sentinels of Science awards

The Sentinels of Science awards, launched this year by Publons, recognizes the contribution of peer reviewers and editors.

In keeping with this year’s theme of Peer Review Week - Recognition for Review - Publons introduced the Sentinels of Science awards “to honour the expert peer reviewers and editors who stand guard over research quality, and lead the charge for better, faster science.” The first recipients of this prize were announced on September 23, 2016. They were recognized for their duties performed between October 1, 2015, and September 17, 2016.

Jonas Ranstam, a medical physicist in Sweden, received the award for being the world’s most prolific peer reviewer, having reviewed 661 papers across 16 scientific fields, with an average of two reviews per day.

The award for the top contributing editor went to Jose Florencio Lapeña, a pediatric head and neck surgeon at the University of the Philippines who, as a journal editor and member of some editorial boards, had handled the maximum number of papers during the time period under question

Admittedly, the financial component of the award is modest, with Ranstam receiving $250, along with a $1,000 voucher to publish in an open access journal and Lapeña receiving $100 cash and a $200 credit with Wiley. However, the initiative intends to acknowledge the work of peer reviewers and editors more prominently.

The idea of recognizing the people behind the scenes was conceived by Publons, an organization that has, for some time, been trying to revive peer review and give more recognition to peer reviewers. Although peer reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the quality of scientific publications, peer review is a service that has been provided pro bono and without any acknowledgement. Publons awards digital “badges” to reviewers for the “merit” points they earn through their reviews. With the Sentinels of Science awards, Publons has gone a step further by given reviewers accolades that may have long been overdue. Whether other journals and publishers follow suit and introduce other ways to reward peer reviewers for their service to the scientific community remains to be seen.

You might also be interested in reading:

Interview with Andrew Preston, co-founder of Publons

Academic publishing and scholarly communications: Good reads, September 2016

$
0
0
 Good reads, September 2016

We’re here, with our list of the most interesting discussions of the month, handpicked by our editors. Besides Peer Review Week, which was highlight of the month, there were exchanges around Elsevier’s patent for online peer review, the emerging trend of outsourcing clinical trials, the need for animal testing in biomedicine, and more.

September was a busy month for the scholarly publishing community, with loads of work to catch up with after vacations. To add to this, Peer Review Week 2016 created a flurry of activity!  Has all the buzz kept you away from your reading about the goings-on in the industry? Don’t worry! We’re here as always, with our list of the most interesting discussions of the month, handpicked by our editors especially for you. Besides Peer Review Week, which was highlight of the month, there were exchanges around Elsevier’s patent for online peer review, the emerging trend of outsourcing clinical trials, the need for animal testing in biomedicine, and more. Happy reading!

1. The world’s most prolific peer reviewer: In keeping with this year’s theme for Peer Review Week - Recognition for Review - Publons awarded the Sentinels of Science prize “to honour the expert peer reviewers and editors who stand guard over research quality, and lead the charge for better, faster science.” Jonas Ranstam, a medical physicist in Sweden received the award for the most prolific peer reviewer, for having reviewed 661 papers across 16 scientific fields in slightly less than a year - approximately two reviews per day on an average!

2. Elsevier’s new patent for online peer review: Elsevier has been awarded a patent for its "waterfall" system, the software that allows the internal transfer of a rejected manuscript along with peer review reports to another Elsevier journal, with the author's permission. This patent will prevent other journals or publishers from using a similar system. Academics are particularly worried about the impact this patent could have if applied on Open Source Journals like PLOS ONE. Academics fear that this can indirectly be used against the open peer review system.

3. The ethics of outsourcing clinical trials: This thought-provoking post talks about the ethical and commercial aspect of the emerging trend of outsourcing clinical trials to third world/developing countries such as Africa, China, India, and parts of Eurasia. With increasing demand for urgent solutions to some of the world's most critical problems, the need to conduct clinical trials on readily available and neutral subjects has increased. This has led to the rise of mediating companies that have started outsourcing clinical trials to developing countries where participants are more easily available due to a combination of factors, such as population size and a blind faith in Western medicine. But all is not well in this business as more and more deaths associated with clinical trials are being reported. Is this practice of outsourcing clinical trials ethical? Do participants know about inherent risks involved in such trials? Is outsourcing these studies an ethical practice? This post raises these and similar issues about clinical trials.

4. UN’s efforts to address antibiotic resistance: Stepping up the efforts to deal with global health crises, the United Nations (UN) called for a high-level meeting to address the critical issue of antibiotic resistance. The upcoming General Assembly will focus on efforts that need to be taken at a global level to help understand the relatively new phenomenon of resistance to antibiotics and its implications on healthcare outcomes for diseases such as ebola, Zika, etc. The day-long session on this topic in the UN's General Assembly is expected to conclude with "the first ever UN resolution on the importance of combating antibiotic resistance and—people hope—some sort of commitment to action." If this meeting reaches a definite conclusion, this could impact the immediate future of hot research topics and channels where funding is directed across the globe.

5. Research institutes in Germany defend animal testing: In recent years, animal activists have been protesting against the use of animals in experiments. Hence, researchers feel pressurized to justify their work to ensure that their experiments are completed and findings are published without any controversies. Thus, Germany's major research institutes have joined hands to begin a project with the intention of publicly defending "responsible" animal testing and create awareness about why it is central to biomedical science. The five-year project, Tierversuche verstehen (Understanding animal testing), will cost €250,000 per year and will be reviewed after 3 years. Central to this project is their website that will have researcher testimonials, background information, and other content that will provide an insight into the necessity of responsible animal testing. However, animal activists have deplored the initiative by saying that the website provides no facts about the flaws of animal tests, and is an attempt at justifying animal research and brainwashing the public.

6. Understanding the needs of early career professionalsThe Early Career Subcommittee, a subset of the Society for Scholarly Publishing’s Professional Development Committee, conducted a survey to understand the current needs of early career professionals (ECPs), the resources available to them, and how they prepare themselves for their career. From the responses of 507 ECP participants, it was found that the average age of ECPs is 30. Some of the most important findings of the survey are: (1) 46% stated that “Finding the right role” is the greatest challenge at the start of their careers; (2) 40% stated that on entering academic publishing, they applied for a position found by coincidence or because a job search engine matched the job to their skillset; (3) colleagues were reported to be the primary source of information and learning for 78%; (4) as many as 69% confirmed attending an industry-related webinar, but only 2% paid for themselves. You can also read the Editage Insights post on this topic.

7. Is legal confusion standing in the way of data sharing? Daniel Himmelstein, a data scientist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, launched Hetionet - a free online resource that compiles data on links between drugs, genes, and diseases from 28 public sources. However, when he contacted the concerned researchers for permissions to reproduce their data, he received mixed responses. While some researchers felt that no permissions were required since the data was stored in a public repository and was meant to be used freely, others stated that there could be legal problems. Although data might be stored in a public repository, occasionally, there are copyright related issues and other terms and conditions: for instance, the EU has its own rights and regulations for databases that can prevent data from being republished without legal tangles. Himmelstein says that "The confusion has the power to slow down science" as researchers cannot freely combine data sets for further research.

This is it for this month! We’ll be back with another list in October. Follow our monthly reading lists for more such interesting updates. And if you would like to stay tuned to important happenings in the journal publishing industry, visit our Industry News section. 

 

Suspected predatory publisher OMICS acquires Canadian publishing companies

$
0
0
OMICS acquires Canadian publishers

OMICS International, the India-based academic publisher, which is facing serious charges of unethical publishing practices and publishing junk science, has acquired two reputable Canadian publishing companies. This development has sent shock waves throughout the global academic community.

OMICS International, an India-based academic publisher that has been accused of being a predatory publisher and disseminating junk science, has acquired two reputed Canadian publishing companies, Andrew John Publishing and Pulsus Group. Some journals managed by these publishing companies include Plastic Surgery, the Canadian Journal of Pathology, the Canadian Journal of Optometry, and the Canadian Journal of General Internal Medicine. The acquisition was jointly investigated by two Canadian media agencies, CTV News and Toronto Star. Based on their reports, the manner in which the acquisitions were discovered appears to be controversial, too. According the Toronto Star report, the employees of Andrew John Publishing as well as its affiliate medical organizations were kept in the dark about the acquisition. But Rose Simpson, a former managing editor of four medical journals with Andrew John Publishing, felt that something was amiss and discovered the acquisition after a Google search. She decided to become a whistleblower and publicize this for the benefit of the Canadian research community. 

Some journals, such as the Canadian Society of Internal Medicine (CSIM), recently discovered that their publisher has been acquired by OMICS and are looking to terminate their contract with the publisher. The Toronto Star report quotes Dr. Stephen Hwang, President of CSIM: “People need to be aware that previously reputable journals could be taken over and become zombie journals. Their scientific integrity is dead but they keep shuffling along, publishing papers and they may no longer be the journals they used to be.” In a blog post about this issue, Jeffrey Beall, Academic Librarian and Associate Professor at  the University of Colorado, remarks, “Now is becoming clear that OMICS purchased Andrew John and is using it as a Canadian ‘base’ of sorts to purchase other Canadian journals, especially society journals.”

Allegations against OMICS: OMICS, whicn follows the open access publishing model, is currently facing a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for misrepresenting “the nature of its publications” as well as its publication process. OMICS is accused of making false claims about its editorial board as well as review process. According to the FTC, the OMICS website mentions that it works with reputable academics and experienced editors and reviewers. Reportedly, however, several of the journal editors listed on the site have not consented to be affiliated with the publisher or its journals.  For example, William Jia, Associate Professor at the University of British Columbia, said that although he received an editorial invitation from OMICS’ surgery journal, he hasn’t done any work for them yet. Also, allegedly, publishing authors are kept in the dark about the publishing fees which could range from a few hundred dollars to  a few thousand. Another allegation is that OMICS also advertises bogus international academic conferences, inviting unsuspecting attendees to pay conference fees. Further, according to the FTC news release about the litigation, the impact factors of OMICS journals are unreliable as "OMICS allegedly calculated its own impact scores and did not clearly disclose that fact to consumers.”    

OMICS responds: Srinubabu Gedela, CEO and Managing Director of OMICS Group, has denied FTC’s allegations, emphasizing that “All the allegations we are getting are from Western countries…and from a few publishers as well as their agents.” Gedela also talks about how OMICS now runs 700 open-access journals that publish over 50,000 articles annually and is supported by a strong global editorial board of about 50,000 members. He also refutes FTC’s allegations about the peer review process followed by OMICS journals. Addressing concerns about OMICS influencing the content of the journals, Gedela says, “There is no control on content and editorial practice of Pulsus Group journals.”

The news of OMICS’ recent acquisitions has sparked fresh discussions about unethical publishing practices, predatory publishing, and junk science. Suzanne Kettley, one of the founding members of the Coalition for Responsible Publication Resources talks about the potential harm caused by junk science: “The danger with junk science flooding the web is that looking up information on immunization, for example, may lead people to anti-vaccination articles in fake journals that are not based on real research”. This development has also led researchers and editors to fear that OMICS “could hijack the Canadian journals’ names and reputations”. The FTC’s allegations against OMICS International are serious and if they win the case, OMICS could be looking at several charges of misconduct and be held responsible for adding thousands of published articles to the junk science category.

Further reading:

What is the acceptance rate for revised manuscripts with a major revision decision?

$
0
0
Question Description: 

 

I received the following email from the editor: "Based on the reviewer comments received, I feel that your manuscript could be accepted for publication should you be prepared to incorporate Major revisions. When preparing your revised manuscript, you are asked to carefully consider the reviewer comments which are attached below, and submit a list of responses to the comments."

My question is: What is the acceptance rate for major revisions? In my case, one reviewer suggested minor revisions and the other suggested major revisions.

 

 

Answer

The acceptance rate of a revised paper varies across journals and fields. Additionally, it is not possible to predict the fate of a paper based on the acceptance rates for a specific journal. You have received one recommendation for major and one for minor revisions. If you address the reviewers’ concerns satisfactorily, your paper stands a fair chance of getting accepted. However, as the editor has mentioned, you need to consider the reviewer comments very carefully, and provide point-by-point responses. Try to follow the reviewers’ suggestions as far as possible. If you have been asked to conduct more experiments, try to do so. If there are a few points that you do not agree with, you can definitely disagree, but you need to clearly explain why you disagree with the comment, giving supporting evidence. Additionally, make sure you are polite and courteous in your responses.

You might also be interested in reading:

 

Nobel Laureate Takaaki Kajita: In my days, nobody felt rushed just because research was making slow progress

$
0
0
Interview with Nobel Laureate Dr. Takaaki Kajita
Dr. Takaaki Kajita, won the Nobel Prize in 2015 (jointly with Arthur McDonald) for the discovery of neutrino oscillations, which solved the longstanding and perplexing Solar neutrino problem. Following his graduation at Saitama University in 1981, Dr. Kajita received his doctoral degree from Tokyo University in 1986. He is currently the director of the Institute for Cosmic Ray Research (ICRR). In addition to the Nobel Prize, Dr. Kajita has bagged several awards for his work, the most recent being the Special Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics in 2016.

What better way to celebrate the Nobel Prize than talking to a Nobel Laureate! We met with Dr. Takaaki Kajita, the Japanese Physicist who won the Nobel Prize in 2015 (jointly with Arthur McDonald) for the discovery of neutrino oscillations. This discovery, which shows that neutrinos have mass, helped solve a Solar neutrino problem, that had perplexed scientists across the globe for several years. Following his graduation at Saitama University in 1981, Dr. Kajita received his doctoral degree from Tokyo University in 1986. He is currently the Director of the Institute for Cosmic Ray Research (ICRR). In addition to the Nobel Prize, Dr. Kajita has bagged several awards for his work, the most recent being the Special Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics in 2016.

When you converse with Dr. Kajita, you are bound to notice his humility and simplicity as well as strong focus on his work. In the course of this interview, we unravel the driving force underlying Dr. Kajita’s success as well as attitude towards his work. He shares his thoughts on winning the Nobel Prize, the current global academic progression system, and on Japan’s scientific research development policies. Our conversation also touches upon his early years and learnings as a researcher after which he shares some useful tips for early career researchers. According to Dr. Kajita, in the current system of academic progression, everybody focuses on short-term, high-impact research projects and there isn’t enough focus on basic research, which needs several years to complete. He encourages young physics researchers to delve into basic research to explore the mysteries of the universe.

Dr. Kajita, you spent your undergraduate years at Saitama University in Japan and became a researcher only after enrolling in graduate school at the University of Tokyo. During your undergraduate ears at Saitama University, did you dream of becoming a researcher someday?

When I entered Saitama University, I had not even considered becoming a researcher. However, I did know that I primarily wanted to focus on physics. As with so many other things in life, you never know what will happen next until you first try it out.

So I started my studies in physics as an undergraduate student at Saitama University. Well, I wasn’t that studious, but there were certain aspects of the field that really intrigued me and this made me want to dive into physics more seriously. At that point, I was not necessarily thinking of going to the University of Tokyo for graduate studies. I just had a vague goal that I wanted to be involved in conducting experiments in elementary particles and cosmic rays. Then I heard about a professor who happened to be researching such subjects at the University of Tokyo, and I thought, “Why not give it a shot!” That was the extent of my thoughts on this.

There are basically two areas of study in physics: one deals with the physical properties of things and the other deals with elementary particles and space. I never really had much interest in the former; instead, I was deeply intrigued by elementary particles and space. It was only after entering graduate school that I began to see how truly fascinating physics and its experiments were.

Okay, so you didn’t think of a serious career in research until graduate school at the University of Tokyo. Did you foresee yourself as a prolific researcher or a Nobel Laureate?

Not at all! I did not think about what I was going to do to secure my future while studying in graduate school. Eventually, I thought of working on a doctorate thesis and earning a doctoral degree. After this, I started looking for a permanent job and thought it would be nice to work as a researcher. That was the extent of my thoughts. Back then, when I was young, I was not the type of person who would think so far ahead before taking action.

Back then, there was a system in place for postdoctoral studies through the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) but I my application was rejected. But I got lucky when Dr. Koshiba from the Faculty of Science at the University of Tokyo decided to hire me as an assistant for a fixed duration at the International Center for Elementary Particle Physics (ICEPP). At the time, ICEPPT was involved in preparations for the e+e- collider experiments to be conducted at CERN in Europe. I was told that I could spend half my time on that, and spend the other half on Kamiokande. That job was supposed to last for a year, but Dr. Koshiba retained me for two years. After that, I became an assistant at the University of Tokyo’s Institute for Cosmic Ray Research. From that point on, I hardly had to think about jobs and just focus on research. So things worked out smoothly for me.

Dr. Kajita, you made remarkable strides and contributions as a research assistant at the University of Tokyo, and eventually received a Nobel Prize. When you reflect upon your journey, what do you think was the one strength you had that allowed you to capitalize on the the chances you got?

Honestly, I don’t quite know what that would be. Thankfully, during those days, the focus of the Institute for Cosmic Ray Research for major future projects was a well discussed and planned, and they had agreed to focus on Super-Kamiokande. Following this, four researchers, including myself, were transferred to the Institute to carry out our research. So I do believe that such fortunate coincidences helped me get to where I wanted to be. When it comes to occupations in academia, very few people choose a path saying, “This must be the way” and manage to reach their destination. I think, to a certain extent, you have no choice but to be flexible.

Dr. Kajita, you have been working in the field of cosmic ray research for decades. Where does your motivation to continue research for such a long time and make scientific discoveries come from?

Well, in my case, I think my chance discovery of neutrino oscillations played a key role. The first time I noticed data relating to neutrino oscillations was in 1986, just six months after I received my doctoral degree. At the time, though I did not know that my data was pointing to neutrino oscillations, I was aware that this could lead to a major discovery. It was then that I made up my mind about pursuing this investigation as it felt like something that had never been imagined in the past – like it was something very important! All I have done since then is follow the same thoughts. I felt that if I continued with my research, it would indubitably lead to some important findings.

I think, nowadays, young researchers and people in positions hired for a limited term are unable to work on one large theme over a long period of time with their research the way I did. I think we are now living in a time where we are told, “You must publish a paper each year,” or we are pushed to publish just about anything as often as we can for the sake of evaluations. Back in the day, nobody demanded that out of young researchers. Despite this, we were writing a paper every two years or so. That is to say, in my days, nobody felt rushed just because research was making slow progress. I think the fact that we were allowed to study and research subjects that we cared about contributed greatly in continuing such long-term research projects.

Did you ever imagine yourself as a Nobel Laureate?

I get that question a lot! For a few years, before I received the Nobel Prize, journalists always discussed our work especially around September, just before the announcements. But I had always treated it with detachment because it had nothing to do with me. I felt that I would probably never actually win a Nobel Prize. So that was the extent of my thoughts on becoming a Nobel Laureate.

But you did win it! From what we’ve heard, you were notified about the prize about 10 minutes before the announcement. What was it like when you were notified?

Of course, I was surprised! They just contact you without any forewarning. There is no time to think the moment you receive the award. Your mind goes blank. I couldn’t process anything.

A few years ago, there were some discussions about how the University of Tokyo, which is considered a prestigious academic institution in Japan, has not produced too many Nobel Laureates. Dr. Kajita, you were originally from Saitama University, and several other Laureates are not from the University of Tokyo. What do you think about this discussion?

Well, let’s see. There are two aspects to this discussion. We are looking at the University of Tokyo as either a place to conduct research or a place where future researchers are nurtured. When we consider the former, as my research was conducted at the University of Tokyo, I do believe that I could have not done this research at any other place but at this institution. On the other hand, if we consider the University as a place where future researchers are nurtured, I think it means that the Japanese universities are not capable of selecting bright researchers based on their performance at the high school level. I think this is the reason why highly prolific or award winning researchers come from other academic institutions and not just the University of Tokyo. For this reason, I think that the Japanese government should offer stronger support to its national universities.

At the same time, I do think that when it comes to research at the graduate school level or higher, it is quite normal to see certain specialized universities becoming a center or a hub of research. Of course, this does not mean that everybody studies at the University of Tokyo. I just think it is natural for such hubs to be created as people identify various institutions for their specialties saying, “For this type of research, this would be the place to go!”

Let’s talk about research evaluation. As you mentioned earlier, in the past, researchers were not required to publish a lot of papers and were allowed to focus on what they wanted to study. Today, they need to produce results within a short period and undertake short-term research projects. This might affect their ability to work on something that leads to major findings. Have you, experienced this, too?

This is true! Everywhere I look, I find competitive and aggressive evaluation criteria. I think the whole of Japan is in this situation. But when it comes to the Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, if we would respond to such pressure all the time, we wouldn’t be able to achieve success. So although we do share evaluation reports for the purpose of external assessments, our stance is to place less emphasis on them. I do not know how many other research institutes in Japan have adopted their own way of doing things as we have, but I would like to maintain our stance and independence for as long as possible.

Do the assessors emphasize the number of publications when considering applications to scientific research grants? I do not think so. These assessors are also scientists, and I think that they evaluate researchers based on the quality of their work and on what are they trying to do going forward. I think they look at whether or not applicants (researchers) have followed relevant scientific processes and whether they would be able to continue to follow their methods going forward.

Let us now talk about nurturing young researchers. What are your thoughts on how young researchers should be trained and nurtured? As a young researcher, you have worked with Dr. Koshiba on research projects. If you could talk about the kind of education you received from Dr. Koshiba as well as share your own thoughts on this topic, that’d be great.

Sure! Dr. Koshiba did not seem to focus excessively on the technical details when it came to educating young researchers. As far as I remember, he primarily conveyed the gist of what scientists must do. For example, he often remarked, “If you want to be an independent researcher in the future, you need to have a few research ‘eggs’ of your own.” This left quite an impression on me. He would remind us that as researchers we needed to constantly think about, “When and where can I accomplish this? “Is this the right time for me?” That was at the heart and root of his education.

What I learned at the Koshiba Lab was that actual lab work and research at an institution are extremely important. For example, it is important, even for graduate students, to build an apparatus with other researchers or to participate in discussions with other researchers as their peers and collaborate with them in some way. To experience such interaction and collaboration at the place of research/a research lab is an important part of the training for upcoming researchers. The Institute for Cosmic Ray Research is in a position to prepare and set up things at such a level that even the largest research labs in Japan in the field of cosmic ray research would be unable to undertake independently. We are also able to use these with other researchers from Japan. We create highly sophisticated systems that are beyond the level of a university and operate them. So the Institute is a research facility that allows researchers at all levels to be part of such advanced research. I hope that young researchers can participate in this hands-on process gain rich experience, and grow as a result. That is what I think.

What qualities do you think young researchers should possess to succeed in the field of physics today?

I do think that it is important for researchers to be aware of the fundamental issues and questions that exist in the field of study they are engaged in, and what kind of approaches exist to tackle them. But, as far as personal qualities are concerned, I don’t know what to say because there are many ways to answer this.

Hypothetically, if you were a young physics researcher in your late 20’s or 30’s, would you be doing the same research you are engaged in now?

If I were in my 20’s now, I think I would be doing the same kind of research. The field of cosmic rays is too interesting. There’s no other place I’d rather be.

Do you have any thoughts on Japan’s science and technology policies?

These are my personal views: Occasionally, I feel that in Japan, government-led policies on science and technology focus entirely on “innovation.” Everything is viewed from the same lens. In recent years, it has been all about “innovation.” I think this is concerning because this has initiated a sort of trend that deals with pursuing science for the sake of innovation. I do not know how this trend will impact basic science in the long run. For example, during some of my recent talks at high schools and junior high schools about neutrino research, I am shocked to find that there is always at least one student who asks, “What good is that research for?”

What I expect from them is pure curiosity and interest in these topics of research. Today, however, the mindset among the youth is such that before everything else, they question the value of an academic subject from the perspective of whether or not it would be useful for them in the future. This worries me a lot. I truly hope that my talks would make young students realize that there are amazing natural phenomena and mysteries in the universe, and that there is a body of research dedicated to unraveling those mysteries.

What would you say to motivate students who are interested in physics and want to pursue further research in this field?

I just want them to know that we will continue to advocate for and let the world know about the importance of basic science. So I wish that young researchers would stop worrying and simply come and join us. That’s all!

Would you like to share any further thoughts about Japan’s national science and technology policies?

There is one more thing I’d like to say. This is not a well-known fact, but, out of the 32 OECD countries, Japan has the lowest budget allocated to higher education against the GDP. Looking at this from a global perspective, the share of public funds dedicated to research in relation to GDP is extremely low in Japan. I wish that more people in Japan would be made aware of this and be made to understand the potential impact of this on scientific progress in the country. I wish Japanese citizens would ponder about whether or not this is the same Japan as we imagine it to be.

Thank you, Dr. Kajita, for sharing your thoughts!

Note: This interview is the result of a fruitful conversation between Dr. Kajita and Mr. Makoto Yuasa (Representative Director, Cactus Communications Japan) as well as Ms. Ai Kanoh (Assistant Vice President of Marketing, Cactus Communications Japan and China). The interview was planned, coordinated, and compiled in English by Jayashree Rajagopalan.

Related reading:

Why does the status date change while the status remains 'With Editor'?

$
0
0
Question Description: 

Dear Dr. Eddy, I submitted a manuscript to a journal in early September. After a couple of days, the status changed to 'With Editor.' After three weeks, the status date has changed to 23 Sep, but the status is still 'With Editor.' What does this imply ? Does it mean that the editor sent the manuscript to some potential reviewers, but they have declined to review it, and the editor is sending the manuscript to other reviewers ? 

Answer

If the status date changes, but the status remains the same, it indicates that the Editor has accessed the database to check your manuscript. There could be several reasons behind this. The editor could have accessed the database to download the manuscript for the initial editorial screening. Another possibility is that the initial screening is done and the Editor wanted to see the names of the reviewers you have suggested or wanted to check your reference list for potential reviewers. The third possibility could be, as you have mentioned, that one or more of the reviewers have declined the review invitation and the Editor wants to check the reference list to find more potential reviewers.


What documentation do I need to provide if I cite unpublished work?

$
0
0
Question Description: 

I have submitted a manuscript to the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry and received the email below. However, I am not sure about the document which supports ”unpublished work”. Which documents should I send? Your advice would be appreciated.

Dear Dr. Y:

I am currently processing your submission to the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. While reviewing your submission I noted the following:

You indicated in the online submission form that your manuscript cites unpublished work, however, you did not upload any documentation to support this information. Please confirm, does your manuscript cite unpublished work? If so, please email me the applicable documentation and I will upload it on your behalf.

Sincerely,

Answer

The author guidelines of the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry mentions the following rules about citing unpublished sources:

"If pertinent references are “in press” or unpublished for any reason, furnish copies to enable reviewers to evaluate the manuscript. An electronic copy of these materials should be uploaded according to the directions for review-only Supporting Information. 'In press' references should include the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) assigned by the potential publisher."

The guideline clearly states that if you have cited any unpublished work, you will need to provide a copy of the manuscript for reviewers to see if they wish to. The guidelines also state that the journal does not encourage citing unpublished work of others, but allows reference to the author's own unpublished work. Thus, if you have cited one of your own works which is not yet published, you will have to provide a copy of the manuscript for reviewers' perusal.

You should upload this document on the submission page as supporting information. I think you should go back to the submission page and check the instructions for uploading supporting information. 

If however, you have not cited any unpublished work in your paper, you should reply to the email explaining this.

Can economic research effectively influence policy?

$
0
0
Can economic research effectively influence policy?

Economists rarely agree with each other and sometimes contradict themselves. Understandably frustrated by the lack of conviction afflicting his economic advisers, President Truman famously asked for a one-handed economist who wouldn't be able to use the profession's much-favored caveat - 'On the other hand'

Those of us campaigning for the use of empirical research to drive public policy design and implementation would be well served to be reminded of the difficulties inherent in the task. A case in point would be to consider two recent papers that are well thought out, are based on plausible theory, and have sound research design but reach the exact opposite conclusions.

forthcoming publication in the American Economic Journal: Economic Policy by Ater, Givati, and Rigbi concludes that assuring criminals of a constitutional right to legal counsel results in a higher crime rate. The well-intentioned legal presumption of innocence discourages police from making arrests that they may not be able to defend in court, which seems to lower the cost of crime for criminals.

However, Heaton, Mayson, and Stevenson of the University of Pennsylvania Law School find negative long-term spillover effects of pretrial detention. Detainees are more likely to be sentenced to jail, receive twice the average length of jail time, and commit crimes in the future.

The former study recommends a course of stricter detention; conversely, the latter recommends a better pretrial release policy. Unfortunately, such situations allow policymakers and lobbyists to cherry-pick research that confirms their pre-existing biases.

Celebrating the 2016 Nobel Prize winners

$
0
0
Nobel Prize 2016

It’s that time again, when all eyes and ears are turned towards the most important announcements of the year – the Nobel Prizes. Let’s take a look at this year’s Nobel Laureates.

It’s that time again, when all eyes and ears are turned towards the most important announcements of the year – the Nobel Prizes. The Nobel Prize is, arguably, the most important recognition awarded to the most influential scientists, literary minds, and peacekeepers in the world. The prestige associated with winning the Prize is very high and most young researchers aspire to get there some day. Let’s take a look at this year’s Nobel Laureates. 

Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (announced on October 3 2016): The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded to the renowned molecular biologist Yoshinori Ohsumi “for his discoveries of mechanisms for autophagy.” In particular, his work on how cells work on their own contents by digesting and recycling them. Dr. Ohsumi devised a way to observe and identify the genes that are part of yeast autophagy. He also showed that such a mechanism also occurs within the human body. This discovery helps link autophagy mutations to diseases like cancer or Parkinson’s. It also has implications on treatments for other similar diseases.

Nobel Prize in Physics (announced on October 4, 2016): The Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to three British-born theorists. One half was awarded to David J. Thouless, while the other half was awarded jointly to F. Duncan M. Haldane and J. Michael Kosterlitz “for theoretical discoveries of topological phase transitions and topological phases of matter.” The work of these physicists points the way to understanding how exotic matter works, especially the anomalous behaviors, such as superconductivity or magnetism, observed at the surfaces of materials and thin layers. These discoveries have potential applications in electronics and quantum computers.

Nobel Prize in Chemistry (announced on October 5, 2016): The Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded jointly to Jean-Pierre Sauvage, Sir J. Fraser Stoddart, and Bernard L. Feringa “for the design and synthesis of molecular machines.” The tiny machines created by the trio include pumps, axles, memory devices, shuttles, and a nanocar! While the application of such devices is yet to be worked on, it is hoped that they may be useful in pharmaceutical and electronic applications. This invention may have created another avenue in the field of nanoscience.

Nobel Prize in Economics (announced on October 10, 2015): The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences was awarded to to Oliver Hart and Bengt Holmström “for their contributions to contract theory” Acccording to the press release announcing this prize, "The new theoretical tools created by Hart and Holmström are valuable to the understanding of real-life contracts and institutions, as well as potential pitfalls in contract design."

Congratulations to all the winners!

Editage Insights also recommends:

6 Critical ethical principles associated with research in traditional medicine

$
0
0
Ethical principles of publishing traditional medicine research

The ethics of research in traditional medicine have recently been hotly debated. This post helps authors understand the ethical principles governing publication in traditional medicine journals by outlining six broad aspects to be considered.

In recent years, there has been a substantial debate on the ethics of research in traditional medicine (TM). In general, the controversies have revolved around the unreasonable harvesting of medicinal plants from the wild, ethical accountability of researchers towards local knowledge holders, and the credibility of TM as a complementary and alternative mode of treatment [1]. Since increased publications are the only way to maximize research outreach, it is important to understand the ethical principles governing publication in TM journals. There are six broad things to consider here:

  1. Ethical policies and declarations
  2. Sustenance
  3. Scientific validation
  4. Informed consent
  5. Proprietary issues
  6. Reporting standards

1. Ethical policies and declarations

The Helsinki declaration outlined the basic ethics of human experimentation and marked the beginning of resolutions and policies in research studies. However, the Chiang Mai declaration (March 1988), the WHO Traditional Medicines Strategy 2002–2005, and the WHO general guidelines for Methodologies on Research and Evaluation of Traditional Medicine have a greater focus on the ethical principles for research in TM. For example:

 

2. Sustenance is key

Fundamentally, traditional knowledge and expertise should be approached in respectful and ethnically appropriate ways that benefit the involved communities without disturbing the community ecosystem. The research design must have some social value and inculcate awareness to help improve health and socio-economic conditions of the community. Ultimately, there should be a balance between the need to document traditional knowledge and the need to ensure protection against unfair or harmful use of the knowledge and exploitation of interrelated biocultural resources. However, respect for parallel processes is also about ensuring that one belief, process, or system of knowing does not undermine the other. Thus, while the research methodology should guarantee the safety and efficacy of herbal medicines and traditional procedure-based therapies, it should not thwart the application and development of TM [7].
 
3. Scientific validation

Scientific validation is the prerequisite for useful interpretation and wider acceptance of TM. Institutional recognition and support must be provided to Research Ethics Boards or Review Boards. Since the same TM may be used by different communities to cure different ailments, scientific validation in each case using standard or modified methods is imperative. Validation studies must consider adequate sample sizes and ensure unbiased outcome measurements. Validation studies should include dosage and standardization, and ensure the safety and efficacy of biologically active substances before large-scale clinical trials are conducted [3].

 

Randomized controlled trials should be presented according to the CONSORT guidelines. During manuscript submission, authors must provide the CONSORT checklist accompanied by a flow diagram illustrating the progress of patients through the trial, including recruitment, enrollment, randomization, withdrawal and completion, and a detailed description of the randomization procedure [6].

4. Informed consent

Informed consent is a term used to mean informed, voluntary, and decisionally-capacitated consent obtained from study participants. The simplest rationale for informed consent is that it protects participants' health, welfare, and personal integrity. Alternatively, informed consent safeguards the informants against such deontological offenses as assault, deceit, coercion, and exploitation [7].

The ethical principles governing TM research demand that researchers must respect, preserve, and maintain traditional knowledge, innovations, and practices. Studies on patients or volunteers require ethics committee approval and informed consent, which should be documented in the published research article. It is mandatory to share the objectives and method outline of the study as part of the informed consent procedure. The individuals should be made aware of their right to refuse to participate in the research. Additionally, the researcher is ethically bound to maintain the confidentiality of the information collected (in the case of clinical studies) [6].
 
5. Proprietary issues

Researchers evaluating traditional medicines need to recognize that the customary owner, and often that owner’s country of origin, holds rights over the knowledge being evaluated. This has consequences for patenting. If a patent is sought by a nonindigenous group, prior informed consent and benefit-sharing with customary owners must be established. TM journals protect intellectual property rights by ensuring that the origin of traditional knowledge is traceable, prior informed consent of knowledge holders and source communities is documented, knowledge holders retain rights over knowledge, due credits are given to knowledge holders, and benefits are shared equitably among contributors [8].

6. Reporting standards

Unfortunately, there is no widely accepted template for documenting TM knowledge. However, such studies must be supported by extensive data, especially if the knowledge is documented to develop innovations. Information on gathering, cultivation, preparation, storage, and seasonal and altitudinal variation of active compounds is of prime importance in TM studies. Likewise, clinical information on TM must state symptoms, dosages, toxicity, efficacy and side-effects, as well as methods of administration. While there is no universal rule stating the level of individual or community contributions that must be included in documentation efforts, failing to acknowledge TM knowledge holders with a claim to the knowledge may lead to charges of misappropriation of  intellectual property [9].

To develop a reliable and coherent body of knowledge in TM, or for that matter, in any field, it is essential to publish articles in peer reviewed journals. Publication ethics are an essential part of research dissemination as ethical principles lend support, adequacy, and credibility to the scientific method. It is, therefore, extremely important for researchers in the field of traditional medicine to understand, agree upon, and follow the standards of expected ethical behavior as outlined in this article for publishing in peer reviewed TM journals.

References

 

8 Tips for presenting a paper at an academic conference

$
0
0
Presenting a paper at an academic conference

Presenting at an academic conference is an opportunity that most young researchers look forward to. However, addressing a large audience can make you feel nervous, at least the first few times. This article provides a few tips that will help you prepare for your conference presentation and make the process smoother for you. 

Presenting at an academic conference is an important part of a researcher's life, and is an opportunity that most young researchers look forward to. However, while it is no doubt an exciting experience, it presents a scary prospect for most researchers. It is natural for even senior and experienced researchers to feel a tad nervous while addressing a large audience, but for young researchers who are presenting for the first time, the whole process can be overwhelming.

The key to an effective conference presentation lies in being well-prepared. Here are a few tips that will make the process smoother for you:

1. Write your paper with the audience in mind: A conference paper should be different from a journal article. Remember that your paper is meant to be heard, not read.  Audiences typically have lower attention spans than readers; therefore, keep the content simple and straightforward. Structure the paper well, with a clear introduction, body, and conclusion. Use language that is simple and clear. Explain any technical terms that you have used and provide a quick recap of the main points wherever needed.

2. Adhere to time limits: Generally, paper presentation sessions at conferences are 20-30 minutes long, so prepare your material accordingly. Also, be prepared for any last-minute changes in session timings. If you have been allotted 20 minutes, be ready with a short skeleton outline, just in case the speaker before you has overshot his/her time limit and you only get 10 minutes to present. Conversely, keep some extra material handy because you may get 30 minutes instead of 20.

3. Rehearse in front of a friend: Reading in your mind will not help you keep time simply because reading aloud in front of an audience takes longer. Rehearsing a few times in front of a friend or in front of the mirror, so that you are familiar with the content, will boost your confidence. Recording a video of your practice sessions is also a good idea as you can view them later and understand where you need to improve. However, don’t rehearse too much just before the actual session, or your voice might sound dull and tired.

4. Start confidently: How you begin your presentation matters a great deal. You will have to gain the audience’s confidence and attention within the first 10-20 seconds of your session. Begin with a quick introduction about yourself as this will help establish your credibility. Make sure you prepare for this in advance. Carefully select a few highlights and be ready with a brief self-introduction. Here’s an example:  “Good morning everybody! My name is Tom Smith. I am a post graduate in medicine from the University of Michigan, New York and I have spent the past five years working at the Department of Internal Medicine, JJ Hospital. Today, I am going to present a paper titled …..”

5. Maintain eye contact with the audience: As you begin your presentation, smile. Be calm, and breathe deep. This will help you relax and dissolve any awkwardness between you and the audience.  Be mindful of your posture: stand straight and hold your head up. This will help you make eye contact with the audience and will also make your voice more audible. Do not read to the desk. Talk clearly, loudly, and energetically. But don’t be too fast: remember that there could be people in the audience whose native language is not English. Take advantage of pauses to look up at your audience, give your audience time to react to what you say, or to let what you said sink in, or to just let yourself breathe and be more composed.

6. Use transitions: Remember to use transitions when moving from one idea to another: transitions ensure a smooth flowing presentation. Some useful transitions are “furthermore,” “in addition,” “consequently,” “meanwhile,” “finally,” etc. When using the same idea twice, you can begin with “A similar idea is” or “Another example is,” etc. When giving a point-by-point explanation, it is best to mention the total number of points at the outset; for example: “There are reasons for this. The first reason is….; the second reason is; etc.” This approach will help readers keep track of the points you are discussing. Additionally, sometimes a simple pause or a direct statement such as “Let’s move to the next part of the presentation” or “To move on to another idea” is also an effective way to introduce a new section, idea, or perspective.

7. Encourage questions and discussions: If you don’t understand a question, you could ask for it to be rephrased. Don’t worry if you don’t know the answer to one or two questions: you can thank the person for raising it, saying that you have not explored this angle, but will definitely think about it. If there are no questions, you can give a cue by pointing out a weakness of the paper. However, don’t be too bothered if there aren’t any questions even after you’ve asked a few times.

8. Ensure that the closing is natural: Ask if there are any questions, offer your contact information, and tell the audience that you would be open to receiving questions from them over email. If there are questions, answer them. If there aren’t any questions, just say thank your audience for attending the session and walk off the stage. However, do not leave the room immediately. People might come to you with questions that strike them after you have concluded the presentation, or might want to talk to you one-on-one.

You might also be interested in reading the following related posts:

References:

Viewing all 4754 articles
Browse latest View live