| 1. |
- Burton-Jones, Andrew, et al.
(författare)
-
MISQ's DEI initiatives : A continuing journey
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Learned Publishing. - : Wiley. - 0953-1513 .- 1741-4857. ; 36:1, s. 48-53
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- MIS Quarterly's (MISQ's) mission is to help develop, publish, and promote the finest scholarship within the IS academic community, and to do so without discrimination and bias. To address the above, MISQ's Editor-in-Chief and DEI Director published a diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) position statement with an accompanying MISQ Editorial in 2021. MISQ decided to direct its DEI efforts equally towards ‘scholars’ (e.g., authors, reviewers) and the ‘scholarship’ (e.g., topics we study and approaches we take). Formation of a DEI workgroup was an early effort aimed at ensuring that the DEI-related practices are developed and implemented through a collective voice. A year-long mentoring programme including paper and career development sessions was designed to help scholars who had been inequitably affected by the pandemic. Initiatives such as flexible accommodation for board members and mentorship track for authors from disadvantaged groups/regions are being designed.
|
|
| 2. |
- Elliott, Tracey, et al.
(författare)
-
Perceptions on the prevalence and impact of predatory academic journals and conferences : A global survey of researchers
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Learned Publishing. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 0953-1513 .- 1741-4857. ; 35:4, s. 516-528
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- A global survey of researchers was conducted to gather perceptions on the prevalence and impact of predatory academic journals and conferences. The survey was open and inclusive in nature, with 1872 researchers, from a wide array of geographic regions, disciplines and academic career stages, voluntarily participating. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analysed. The survey revealed that over 80% (1537 of 1859) of respondents perceive predatory practices are already a serious problem or on the rise in their country of work, and risk infiltrating and undermining the research enterprise if left unchallenged. At least 24% (445 of 1872) of respondents admitted they had already published in a predatory journal, participated in a predatory conference, or did not know if they had. Over 87% of respondents who had published (174 of 199) or participated (60 of 64) indicated that a lack of awareness of predatory practices was the main reason. Those in lower-middle and upper-middle-income countries were more likely to indicate they had engaged in these activities than those in high-income ones, with some disciplines appearing to engage more than others. Individual impact was mixed: some indicated no impact while others noted a range of negative and detrimental feelings.
|
|
| 3. |
- Eriksson, Stefan, Docent, 1963-, et al.
(författare)
-
Time to stop talking about ‘predatory journals’
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Learned Publishing. - : Wiley. - 0953-1513 .- 1741-4857. ; 31:2, s. 181-183
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Key points:• The term ‘predatory journal’ hides a wide range of scholarly publishing misconduct.• The term ‘predatory journal’ unhelpfully bundles misconduct with poor quality.• The term ‘predatory journal’ blinds us to important possibilities, needs, and questions arising in the developing scholarly landscape.• The current scholarly publishing environment cannot rely on such a simplified classification of journals into predatory or not.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Godskesen, Tove, et al.
(författare)
-
How do journals publishing palliative and end‐of‐life care research report ethical approval and informed consent?
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Learned Publishing. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 0953-1513 .- 1741-4857. ; 36:4, s. 554-563
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This study explores how papers published in internationaljournals in palliative and end-of-life care report ethical approval andinformed consent. A literature search following PRISMA guidelines wasconducted in PubMed, the Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, theProQuest Social Science Premium Collection, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). A total of169 empirical studies from 101 journals were deductively coded andanalysed. The results showed that 5% of publications provided no information on ethical approval, 12% reported minimal information, 56%reported rudimentary information, and 27% reported comprehensivedetails. We also found that 13% did not report any information oninformed consent, 17% reported minimal information, 50% reported rudimentary information, and 19% reported comprehensive details. The prevalence of missing and incomplete ethical statements and inadequatereporting of informed consent processes in recent publications raises concerns and highlights the need for improvement. We suggest that journalsadvocate high reporting standards and potentially reject papers that donot meet ethical requirements, as this is the quickest path toimprovement.
|
|
| 7. |
- Helgesson, Gert, 1965-, et al.
(författare)
-
Authorship Order
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Learned Publishing. - : Wiley. - 0953-1513 .- 1741-4857. ; 32:2, s. 106-112
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Considering the fact that authorship order plays such a significant role as a basis for scientific merit, this paper looks into the practices of authorship order from a research ethical perspective. We conclude that there is a wide variety of practices and no common understanding of what the different authorship positions signify. Authorship guidelines do not provide much help. We recognize that, regardless of what system for valuing authorship positions is used, it will be misleading and unfair in most applications because relative contributions vary in ways that are not captured by fixed value assignments to authorship positions. In theory, assigning percentage figures reflecting the relative contributions of the authors would solve that problem, but we argue that such a scheme is not likely to work in practice. It can also be questioned whether relative, rather than absolute, contributions should be the basis for scientific merit. Contributorship is discussed as an alternative, but is recognized to be insufficient both in communicating absolute and relative contributions, as standardly used. However, there may be a way forward with contributorship, but then, the level of detail needs to increase considerably and its application be standardized.
|
|
| 8. |
- Helgesson, Gert, et al.
(författare)
-
Editors publishing in their own journals : A systematic review of prevalence and a discussion of normative aspects
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Learned Publishing. - : Wiley. - 0953-1513 .- 1741-4857. ; 35:2, s. 229-240
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Journal editors are the main gatekeepers in scientific publishing. Yet there is a concern that they may receive preferential treatment when submitting manuscripts to their own journals. The prevalence of such self-publishing is not known, nor the consequences for reliability and trustworthiness of published research. This study aimed to systematically review the literature on the prevalence of editors publishing in their own journals and to conduct a normative ethical analysis of this practice. A systematic review was performed using the following databases: Medline, PsycInfo, Scopus and Web of Science. Articles that provided primary data about editors publishing in own journals were included. We identified 15 studies meeting inclusion criteria. There was large variability of self-publishing across fields, journals and editors, ranging from those who never published in their own journal to those publishing extensively in their own journal. Many studies suffered from serious methodological limitations. Nevertheless, our results show that there are settings where levels of self-publication are very high. We recommend that editors-in-chief and associate editors who have considerable power in journals refrain from publishing research articles in their own journals. Journals should have clear processes in place about the treatment of articles submitted by editorial board members.
|
|
| 9. |
- Helgesson, Gert, et al.
(författare)
-
Revise the ICMJE Recommendations regarding authorship responsibility!
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Learned Publishing. - : Wiley. - 0953-1513 .- 1741-4857. ; 31:3, s. 267-269
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Key points:• A clear set of rules regarding authorship responsibilities in academic publications is much needed.• The leading research integrity guidelines on scientific authorship, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Recommendations, are unclear about authorship responsibilities in case of misconduct.• The source of the problem is the fourth authorship criterion – it should be revised.
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
