LSE Impact Blog ’s Post

Open Access Benefits Prestigious Journals the Most Many countries have mandated researchers to publish results in open-access journals, making them accessible to everyone. Authors or institutions cover publication costs, paying thousands for article evaluation and hosting. This system, combined with evaluating researchers by their publication count and journal prestige, has led to flaws where scientists prioritize quantity over quality. Damian Pattinson and George Currie highlight issues with this system, noting prestigious journals profit from the global surge in scientific output while filtering less for quality. Read more: https://lnkd.in/ddxdvGry

"how we value research has become so focused on a few prestige journals – exalted, exclusive and expensive" (...) "Publishing in a big name or high-impact-factor journal is a premier status symbol in academia" So true. More considerations and possible solutions in this article: https://lnkd.in/e2t6-k6U

Hey there 👋 Ever wondered how researchers craft engaging and insightful scientific posters ?? 🤔 For sure you might have tried to make one at some point of time!! So here are some tips and tricks to make a winning Scientific Poster. 🏆 A scientific poster summarizes research findings for conferences or academic events, using text, graphs, and images to share the research question, methodology, results, and conclusions, promoting discussion and collaboration. 📊🔬 1. Start with a literature survey and research plan to shape your study's direction and relevance within your field. 📚 2. Organize your content into sections like Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion, and References for clarity. 🗂️ 3. Create a visually appealing layout with clear headings, consistent fonts, and balanced white space. ✨ 4. Use graphs, charts, tables, and images to illustrate findings clearly, ensuring labels are legible and visuals are cohesive. 🖼️ 5. Write concise, clear text, avoiding errors and verbosity, and use bullet points for succinct information. ✍️ 6. Engage viewers with a compelling title, and consider adding QR codes or links for additional resources, while ensuring accessibility. 📲 7. Print with a reputable service and rehearse your presentation, being prepared to discuss your research with confidence. 🖨️ 8. Balance aesthetics and functionality, use evidence-based visuals, and accurately represent your research without oversimplification. 📌 Constructing an impactful scientific poster necessitates meticulous research, structured organization, captivating design, succinct textual representation, active viewer engagement, and adherence to principles of accessibility. Adhering to these guidelines ensures coherent dissemination of research findings, fostering scholarly discourse and collaboration within academic spheres. 🌐 📸: Made with BioRender 📊 Bioscinova

The COVID-19 pandemic significantly influenced scientific publishing and the output of research institutions and laboratories. Here are 3 long-term changes propelling the science publication industry into a new era: 1) Increased adoption of digital tools and platforms 2) Emphasis on open access 3) Focus on collaborative research Read our Useful Articles @ SciTechEdit for more! #science #publishing #writingtips

A proposal for how to get beyond the journal brands and citation metrics to the quality of research and how it might be assessed and improved. #publishing #science #OA #preprints

"You get what you measure" - I can't recall who told me about this first (I've a feeling it's the kind of thing Martin Hewitt would say), but this is a classic case. You want a researcher to publish papers, and that's all you're measuring? Then they'll publish papers in quantity, without any need to review quality. More generally, if you evaluate a free non-naive agent - a person, or a team, aware of what you're doing and able to act in response - based on one or more metrics, they will inevitably alter their behaviour to maximize those metrics to the detriment of others. Good metrics are therefore those that - when gamed - result in the behaviour you want. (Like, perhaps, references of published papers in this case).

Publish-or-perish mentality in academia has to go! - Because there's so much evidence of dishonesty/faux scholarly pubs & data - Because it sets an unhealthy 'benchmark' of over-productivity/exploitation (leading to poor wellbeing) - Because when participating in the 'knowledge economy', as a trusted source - facts and quality deep analysis must be paramount... especially in the era of 'fake news'! Our Founder has been a key advocate of the #SlowScholarship movement. It's why we designed these stickers: https://lnkd.in/ejpdzWuz This is yet another example of why it is so important to step off the publishing treadmill/conveyer belt and consider your options. It is a widely known fact that non-academic employers aren't interested in your publication list. They're interested in your transferable skills, personality, and talent.

Scientific Publishing is a Mess. Is There a Future Beyond the Journal? Scientific publishing is facing a pivotal moment with growing calls for reform from influential bodies like the International Science Council, European Council, and cOAlition S. To coincide with the FEBS Congress in Milan, Italy this week, I look at the disruptive potential of three alternative publishing models in the article below: 1. Funder platforms 2. Publish, review, curate 3. Deconstructed publishing While these models have much to recommend them, I still struggle to see anything dislodging the journal as the dominant mechanism for scholarly communication. Do you agree, or am I just being shortsighted? Let me know your thoughts in the comments. #stmpublishing #scholcomm #openaccess #publishingreform https://lnkd.in/etgxMHJ2 #ScientificPublishing #FEBSCongress #FutureOfPublishing

#BiomedicalResearch: #ScientificPublishing Unlocking the Vault: The Profit Paradox of Scientific Publishing” Scientific publishing is a highly profitable industry, with revenues rivaling major entertainment sectors. Profit margins in scientific publishing can exceed those of tech giants like Apple and Google. The industry’s profitability is largely due to the unique model where scientists provide their work for free. Publishers incur minimal costs as peer reviews are often done voluntarily by other scientists. The final product is sold back to institutions, often funded by the same governments that sponsored the research. This model has been criticized for its potential to stifle scientific progress and access to knowledge. #ScientificPublishing #OpenAccess #ResearchForAll #AcademicInsight #ProfitableKnowledge

Thank you Rob Johnson for your interesting post about "Scientific Publishing is a Mess. Is There a Future Beyond the Journal?" I’ve been a researcher for a decade and published in peer-reviewed journals and worked for almost a decade in publishing. Which means that this topic gave me quite some sleepless nights. I strongly believe that journals and articles still have their place in today’s research world, for two reasons: 1. Journals are forums for researchers of a same field to gather their communication and makes content-wise perfect sense (even for Google Search :-)) 2. The process of writing an article is intellectually a very tough and rewarding process - that’s the moment the researchers own fully their research - intellectually and emotionally. It becomes their baby. I’m convinced that this exercise is extremely beneficial for the researchers and their creativity. And let’s face it, gives rise to celebration when a manuscript gets accepted. I strongly believe that the issue lies not solely on the publishers's side but the whole research process is affected. It has become alienated and all actors (funders, research organisations, publishers, reviewers, authors,…) are part of the issue. Don’t get me wrong - I do not blame anyone. My guess is simply that the research process is in place for a couple of centuries now and with time processes get naturally alienated. I believe that this alienation is exacerbated also by the shear volume of publications which started to grow exponentially after WWII, which is expected, since each question answered by researchers will rise multiple new questions. That's how research should and does work. In conclusion, I think the whole research process , not only publishing, might need a refactoring. Why not rethink why we do Research, or at least recenter on its noble mission (Simon Sinek's famous WHY?).