skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


Title: Challenges Facing Scientific Publishing in the Field of Earth & Space Sciences
Abstract The scientific publishing landscape is evolving rapidly. This evolution is driven by a confluence of internal and external forces, including the growth of metrics‐based evaluation of scientists; an increasing volume of manuscripts combined with expectations for rapid review and publication; an increasing number of journals, includingfor‐profitOpen Access publications; and the adoption of preprint servers across a growing range of disciplines. Many of these forces are contributing to personal anxiety and fatigue for authors, reviewers, and editors. Collectively, they are placing substantial stress on scientific publishing, which is a foundational pillar of the scientific enterprise. As editors of American Geophysical Union journals and books, we remain confident in the fundamental foundations of scientific publishing, but we are concerned about the impact of these increasing stressors. By affirming and investing in editorial values, respecting scientific integrity and credibility, and committing to accessibility, transparency, and accountability, we can fortify the foundations of the scientific enterprise during a time of rapid change.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
2153786
PAR ID:
10554903
Author(s) / Creator(s):
Corporate Creator(s):
Publisher / Repository:
American Geophysical Union
Date Published:
Journal Name:
AGU Advances
Volume:
5
Issue:
4
ISSN:
2576-604X
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; (, mBio)
    Casadevall, Arturo (Ed.)
    ABSTRACT In this editorial, written by early-career scientists, we advocate for the invaluable role of society journals in our scientific community. By choosing to support these journals as authors, peer reviewers, and as editors, we can reinforce our academic growth and benefit from their re-investment back into the scientific ecosystem. Considering the numerous clear merits of this system for future generations of microbiologists and more broadly, society, we argue that early-career researchers should publish our high-quality research in society journals to shape the future of science and scientific publishing landscape. 
    more » « less
  2. (, Journal of Comparative Physiology A)
    Abstract A frequent complaint of editors of scientific journals is that it has become increasingly difficult to find reviewers for evaluating submitted manuscripts. Such claims are, most commonly, based on anecdotal evidence. To gain more insight grounded on empirical evidence, editorial data of manuscripts submitted for publication to the Journal of Comparative Physiology A between 2014 and 2021 were analyzed. No evidence was found that more invitations were necessary over time to get manuscripts reviewed; that the reviewer’s response time after invitation increased; that the number of reviewers who completed their reports, relative to the number of reviewers who had agreed to review a manuscript, decreased; and that the recommendation behavior of reviewers changed. The only significant trend observed was among reviewers who completed their reports later than agreed. The average number of days that these reviewers submitted their evaluations roughly doubled over the period analyzed. By contrast, neither the proportion of late vs. early reviews, nor the time for completing the reviews among the punctual reviewers, changed. Comparison with editorial data from other journals suggests that journals that serve a smaller community of readers and authors, and whose editors themselves contact potential reviewers, perform better in terms of reviewer recruitment and performance than journals that receive large numbers of submissions and use editorial assistants for sending invitations to potential reviewers. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; ; ; (, Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research)
    Peer-review and publication are important parts of the scientific enterprise, and research has shown that engaging students in such scholarly practices helps build their sense of belonging and scientific identity. Yet, these disciplinary literacy skills and professional practices are often part of the hidden curriculum of science research, thus excluding students and others from fully understanding ways in which scientific knowledge is constructed, refined, and disseminated even though students are participating in such activities. Secondary students are increasingly involved in scientific research projects that include authentic disciplinary literacy components such as research proposals, posters, videos, and scientific research papers. More and more, students are also engaging in professional practice of publishing their scientific research papers through dedicated secondary science journals. How teachers and other mentors support the development of professional disciplinary literacies in students is critical to understand as part of supporting more student participation in research. To this end, we used a mixed-methods study of interviews and surveys to examine the experience and conceptions of the mentors (teachers and professional scientists) who guided pre-college students through the writing and publication of their scientific research projects. Analyzing our data from a lens of cognitive apprenticeship, we find that mentors encourage independence by primarily employing the method of “exploration”. We also find that mentors have divergent views on the value of publication within science, versus for student scientists specifically. Our findings suggest that mentors could work to explicitly reveal their own thinking within science writing to provide more sequenced support for student scientists. 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; (, Science Education)
    While there is evidence to support the existence of identity-based disparities, inequities, and biases in the academic journal peer-review process, little research supports the presence of this bias in the peer-review process for academic journals in science education. Through an analysis of six leading journals in science education, we aimed to investigate the extent to which diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), as well as the presence of bias in the peer-review process, are addressed by these journals. We analyzed trends in the gender/sex, geographical affiliation, race/ethnicity, and the presence of equity-centered research focus for members of these journals' editors and editorial boards. We found that although gender/sex is well-balanced in these journals' editors and editorial boards, they are typically North American centric, and White individuals are overwhelmingly represented. Four journals had a quarter or more of individuals who pursue equity-centered research. Only two journals provided detailed information on how manuscripts are reviewed in their author submission guidelines. All used a double-blind approach to peer-review. One of the journals includes an explicit position on DEI. Based on the analyses and reflections on our own experiences, we recommend science education journals consider ways to probe whether bias does exist in their peer-review process, diversify their board to be more inclusive of scholars from communities historically marginalized, and move to a triple-blind approach to their peer-review process as mechanisms to mitigate bias in the journal peer review. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ; (, IASSIST Quarterly)
    Journal editors play an important role in advancing open science in their respective fields. However, their role is temporary and (usually) part time, and therefore many do not have enough time to dedicate towards changing policies, practices, and procedures at their journals. The Journal Editors Discussion Interface (JEDI, https://dpjedi.org) is an online community for journal editors in the social sciences that was launched in 2021, consisting of a listserv and resource page. JEDI aims to increase uptake of open science at social science journals by providing journal editors with a space to learn and discuss. In this paper, we explore JEDI’s progress in its first two years, presenting data on membership, posts, and from a members survey. We see a reasonable mix of people participating in listserv conversations and there are no detectable differences among groups in the number of replies received by thread-starters. The community survey suggests JEDI members find conversations and resources on JEDI generally informative and useful, and see JEDI primarily as a community to get honest opinions from others on editorial practices. However, JEDI membership is not as heterogeneous as would be ideal for the purpose of the group, especially when considering geographic diversity. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email