Oct 22, 2024 | Scholarly publishing
Towards the end of September, Peer Review Week hosted a whole host of content around the subject of peer review, its processes, and editorial policies, as well as highlighting updates and current threats to the system that underpins academic publishing.
Editage, in partnership with EASE, organised a discussion entitled “Envisioning a Hybrid Model of Peer Review: Integrating AI with reviewers, publishers, & authors”, led by Chris Leonard (Director of Strategy and Innovation, Cactus Communications). He was joined by Serge P.J.M. Horbach (Institute for Science in Society, Radboud University, Netherlands), Hasseb Irfanullah (independent consultant on environment, climate change, and research systems) and Marie E. McVeigh (Lead, Peer Review Operations and Publication Integrity, Mary Ann Liebert Inc).
The discussion started with highlighting problems with peer review today; noting that we are engaging with a mid-20th Century system of “gatekeeping” which has developed into one setting standards for research, a space to develop work and ideas, where communities can collaborate and a place to discuss what it means to create “good” standards. A major issue with the peer-review process, as highlighted by Serge, is finding quality reviewers – the number of invitations required has increased due to subject specificity and interdisciplinary fields overlapping. The volume and vast number of articles exacerbates this issue and small communities of interest can no longer support growing areas of academic research alone. This can lead to exclusivity and the network of reviewers within it is diminishing.
Hasseb raised the question of whether peer review has become overrated? If a manuscript’s decision can be made on the outcome of two reviewer reports – does this undermine the whole of the research? As peer review is not valued necessarily by the publisher in a financial sense, the value of its contribution is lost. However, it is important to understand that the communication around the research does not end with the peer-review process, it starts upon publication.
As the discussion progressed, the focus turned towards a hybrid approach to peer review and what that means. A hybrid approach could equate to a generative AI and human reviewer contributing towards a reviewer report, while the Journal Editor provides a final commentary. This assistance would provide “free labour” and generative AI is a good bibliographical research tool. Marie posed the suggestion that in cases such as this, it is ideal to allow machines to do what machines can do and allow humans to engage with the outcomes. For example, AI would be great at screening manuscripts, analysing citations and identifying peer groups. Such routine and rule-based tasks can be done quickly and efficiently. Evaluations can then be conducted by humans, who are able to decipher and assess whether the article adds to the scholarly record. As human reviewers cannot be located quickly enough, this dual aspect might be the quickest, cost-efficient way to support peer-review processes going forwards.
As journals look to lean on AI technologies, we need to understand what a journal is and what it does. Is it still simply a facet to share and disseminate work and ideas, or is it becoming more than that – a place where communities engage and develop their insights? By involving AI, do we consider it a peer? If community is at the core of journal publishing, surely humans will be required to keep that sense of togetherness ongoing. Without it, it’s just computers talking to each other.
May 9, 2024 | Scholarly publishing
The “text recycling in research writing” COPE Lightning Talk in April 2024 was presented by Professor Cary Moskovitz (Director of the Text Recycling Research Project at Duke University, NC, USA).
Text recycling can be defined a number of ways. Essentially it is the reuse of material – whether it is prose, visuals or equations – in a new document where material is used in the new document as it was in the original source. The material is not presented in the new document as a quotation and usually one author on the new document is the same as the original.
Recycling material in published papers is common, however authors do need to be mindful of the copyright law that they are submitting their paper under. Under US copyright law, authors may find that generally they can reuse portions of text under the Fair Use clause, and in many STEM journals publishers ensure their policies work to accommodate this, so as not to infringe the copyright/legal ownership.
The ethics of recycling are different and it requires appropriate transparency. Legalities and ethics may differ and the author must ensure that permission has been requested if their use of copyrighted material falls outside of the Fair Use guidance and journal policies. Text recycling should be done within best practice – we cannot expect authors and editors to be experts in copyright law, however publishers’ policies should adapt to and support their communities. It is also important to highlight that authors should check their publisher agreements as this is where the details lie. These will vary from publisher to publisher and the rules around text recycling are not always consistent.
It is recommended to authors that if they are using work which is previously published, a statement could be included in the paper to highlight this, and this would act in accordance with best practice. This will allow the reader to know that the work is not original, but it will also signpost accordingly.
Apr 2, 2024 | Scholarly publishing
The March 2024 COPE Forum began with a discussion on ‘ethical considerations around watchlists’, hosted by Daniel Kulp (Chair, COPE Council).
During the discussion, the benefits and potential risks associated with watchlists were explored from the position of both individuals and journals, as well as how publishers should use them. In principle, a watchlist could be used as a quality control tool; usually kept private as a measure of accountability. If, however, the list was exposed/leaked, the publisher’s trustworthiness and maker of transparency can be held to account.
It is important to note what is included on a watchlist – is information recorded about an individual, including personal data? Do COPE offer any guidance on what kind of criteria individuals should meet to be on a watchlist? And how can an individual defend themselves or “remove” themselves from a list? These were some of the key questions raised during the conversation regarding individual authors or account holders. The threat is much greater to be named and listed; as careers, research programs and scholarly publications can all be potentially be disputed/disrupted if this extremely sensitive information is exposed in the public domain.
At an individual level, abhorrent practices to circumnavigate peer-review processes could be observed through “flagging” an author’s account – for example, to collate information about suspicious activity. However individuals have a higher right to privacy and such lists need to be regulated or kept private within the publishing house. Academic publishing is witnessing a systematic effort to undermine peer review; the rise of papermills, reviewer cartels and bad actors exploiting the system often for financial gain mean that individuals should be aware of this and make due considerations during submission.
Sharing nefarious behaviours is important and if publishers share systematic problems regarding behaviour amongst one another, they can collectively disrupt the ways papermills and peer-review rings operate. COPE has guidance on how EICs can share information. However, how can we share this information more broadly? The STM Integrity Hub offers a duplicate submissions check across publishers, which could be a useful tool to manage misconduct. This is being developed and the STM Integrity Hub are exploring managing this in an ethical and legal way.
One of the biggest risks with watchlists posed at an individual level is that account holders are added incorrectly or without proper reason. This could be very detrimental to an individual in terms of their career and may also possibly be defamatory and could have legal ramifications. Watchlists must aim to be transparent but not give away details of what we are looking for. The risk is higher for individuals as it can directly impact future employment and ability to do research. Should there be mitigation circumstances for appeal for minor infractions? A similar name could be a risk, for example.
In the absence of an agreed decision amongst the industry on what should and shouldn’t be on a watchlist, the main risk appears to be a legal one. STM have already advised that the industry needs to be careful regarding the type of data which is shared. Legally underpinning this stage is crucial to ensure an individual’s privacy and GDPR-compliance is maintained. It was suggested that if private watchlists are maintained, legal counsel should be able to advise how to evoke sanctions or prevent someone from publishing. The publisher however must be mindful of any reputational damage or litigation brought against them.
If an individual finds themselves on a watchlist they do of course have the right to reply, to ensure that the process is fair and transparent and that they can defend themselves and their position. It was raised that it would be good practice to notify an individual that concerns have been identified, which will allow them to ask for an appeal. It is important to consider and understand what the watchlist represents.
As the risks increase and the systematic manipulation of peer review is attacked, the ways in which this data is captured in order to identify patterns of misconduct has to be carried out quickly, ethically and legally in order for the publisher to maintain integrity and be commercially viable as well as managing its own trustworthiness.
