Biology subjects

Alperin, J. P.

Publications and source records attributed to Alperin, J. P..

12 recordsLinked to original sources

bioRxiv2024

From impact metrics and open science to communicating research: Journalists' awareness of academic controversies

This study sheds light on how journalists respond to evolving debates within academia around topics including research integrity, improper use of metrics to measure research quality and impact, and the risks and benefits of the open science movement. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 19 health and science journalists, we describe journalists awareness of these controversies and the ways in which that awareness, in turn, shapes the practices they use to select, verify, and communicate research. Our findings suggest that journalists perceptions of debates in scholarly communication vary widely, with some displaying a highly critical and nuanced understanding and others presenting a more limited awareness. Those with a more in-depth understanding report closely scrutinizing the research they report, carefully vetting the study design, methodology, and analyses. Those with a more limited awareness are more trusting of the peer review system as a quality control system and more willing to rely on researchers when determining what research to report on and how to vet and frame it. We discuss the benefits and risks of these varied perceptions and practices, highlighting the implications for the nature of the research media coverage that reaches the public.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2024

"I'd like to think I'd be able to spot one if I saw one": How science journalists navigate predatory journals

Predatory journals--or journals that prioritize profits over editorial and publication best practices--are becoming more common, raising concerns about the integrity of the scholarly record. Such journals also pose a threat for the integrity of science journalism, as journalists may unwillingly report on low quality or even highly flawed studies published in these venues. This study sheds light on how journalists navigate this challenging publishing landscape through a qualitative analysis of interviews with 23 health, science, and environmental journalists about their perceptions of predatory journals and strategies for ensuring the journals they report on are trustworthy. We find that journalists have relatively limited awareness and/or concern about predatory journals. Much of this attitude is due to confidence in their established practices for avoiding problematic research, which largely centre on perceptions of journal prestige, reputation, and familiarity, as well as writing quality and professionalism. Most express limited awareness of how their trust heuristics may discourage them from reporting on smaller, newer, and open access journals, especially those based in the Global South. We discuss implications for the accuracy and diversity of the science news that reaches the public.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2024

"The best home for this paper": A qualitative study of how authors select where to submit manuscripts

IntroductionFor academics selecting a target journal to submit a manuscript is a critical decision with career implications. In medical education, research conducted in 2016 found that authors were influenced by multiple factors such as a journals prestige and its mission. However, since this research was conducted the publishing landscape has shifted to include a broader variety of journals, an increased threat of predatory journals, and new publishing models. This study updates and expands upon how medical education authors decide which journal to submit to with the aim of describing the motivational factors and journal characteristics that guide authors decision making. MethodsThe authors conducted five qualitative focus groups in which twenty-two medical education authors and editors participated. During the focus groups participants were engaged in a discussion about how they select a journal to submit their manuscripts. Audio from all focus groups was transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed using codebook thematic analysis. ResultsParticipants considered multiple factors when selecting a target journal. Factors included a journals impact, the scope of a journal, journal quality, and technical factors (e.g., word limits). Participants also described how social factors influenced their process and that open access plays a role that could both encourage or deter submission. DiscussionThe findings describe the motivational factors and influential signals that guide authors in their journal selection decision making. These findings confirm, extend, and update journal selection factors reported in medical education and other disciplines. Notably, these findings emphasize the role of social factors, relationships and personal experiences, which were absent from previous work. Additionally, we observed increased consideration of OA and a shift away from an emphasis on journal prestige.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2023

Unreviewed science in the news: The evolution of preprint media coverage from 2014-2021

It has been argued that preprint coverage during the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a paradigm shift in journalism norms and practices. This study examines whether, in what ways, and to what extent this is the case using a sample of 11,538 preprints posted on four preprint servers--bioRxiv, medRxiv, arXiv, and SSRN--that received coverage in 94 English-language media outlets between 2014-2021. We compared mentions of these preprints with mentions of a comparison sample of 397,446 peer reviewed research articles indexed in the Web of Science to identify changes in the share of media coverage that mentioned preprints before and during the pandemic. We found that preprint media coverage increased at a slow but steady rate pre-pandemic, then spiked dramatically. This increase applied only to COVID-19-related preprints, with minimal or no change in coverage of preprints on other topics. In addition, the rise in preprint coverage was most pronounced among health and medicine-focused media outlets, which barely covered preprints before the pandemic but mentioned more COVID-19 preprints than outlets focused on any other topic. These results suggest that the growth in coverage of preprints seen during the pandemic period may imply a shift in journalistic norms, including a changing outlook on reporting preliminary, unvetted research.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2023

Second-order Citations in Altmetrics: A Case Study Analyzing the Audiences of COVID-19 Research in the News and on Social Media

The potential to capture the societal impact of research has been a driving motivation for the use and development of altmetrics. Yet, to date, altmetrics have largely failed to deliver on this potential because the primary audience who cites research on social media has been shown to be academics themselves. In response, our study investigates an extension of traditional altmetric approaches that goes beyond capturing direct mentions of research on social media. Using research articles from the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic as a case study, we demonstrate the value of measuring second-order citations, or social media mentions of news coverage of research. We find that a sample of these citations, published by just five media outlets, were shared and engaged with on social media twice as much as the research articles themselves. Moreover, first-order and second-order citations circulated among Twitter accounts and Facebook accounts that were largely distinct from each other. The differences in audiences and engagement patterns found in this case study highlight the importance of news coverage as a public source of science information and provide strong evidence that investigating these second-order citations can be an effective way of observing non-academic audiences that engage with research content.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2022

Science in motion: A qualitative analysis of journalists' use and perception of preprints

This qualitative study explores how and why journalists use preprints -- unreviewed research papers -- in their reporting. Through thematic analysis of interviews conducted with 19 health and science journalists in the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic, it applies a theoretical framework that conceptualizes COVID-19 preprint research as a form of post-normal science, characterized by high scientific uncertainty and societal relevance, urgent need for political decision-making, and value-related policy considerations. Findings suggest that journalists approach the decision to cover preprints as a careful calculation, in which the potential public benefits and the ease of access preprints provided were weighed against risks of spreading misinformation. Journalists described viewing unreviewed studies with extra skepticism and relied on diverse strategies to find, vet, and report on them. Some of these strategies represent standard science journalism, while others, such as labeling unreviewed studies as preprints, mark a departure from the norm. However, journalists also reported barriers to covering preprints, as many felt they lacked the expertise or the time required to fully understand or vet the research. The findings suggest that coverage of preprints is likely to continue post-pandemic, with important implications for scientists, journalists, and the publics who read their work.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2022

The role of collegiality in academic review, promotion, and tenure

Review, promotion, and tenure (RPT) processes at universities typically assess candidates along three dimensions: research, teaching, and service. In recent years, some have argued for the inclusion of a controversial fourth criterion: collegiality. While collegiality plays a role in the morale and effectiveness of academic departments, it is amorphic and difficult to assess, and could be misused to stifle dissent or enforce homogeneity. Despite this, some institutions have opted to include this additional element in their RPT documents and processes, but it is unknown the extent of this practice and how it varies across institution type and disciplinary units. This study is based on two sets of data: survey data collected as part of a project that explored the publishing decisions of faculty and how these related to perceived importance in RPT processes, and 864 RPT documents collected from 129 universities from the United States and Canada. We analysed these RPT documents to determine the degree to which collegiality and related terms are mentioned, if they are defined, and if and how they may be assessed during the RPT process. Results show that when collegiality and related terms appear in these documents they are most often just briefly mentioned. It is less common for collegiality and related terms to be defined or assessed in RPT documents. Although the terms are mentioned across all types of institutions, there is a statistically significant difference in how prevalent they are at each. Collegiality is more commonly mentioned in the documents of doctoral research-focused universities (60%), than of masters universities and colleges (31%) or baccalaureate colleges (15%). Results from the accompanying survey of faculty also support this finding: individuals from R-Types were more likely to perceive collegiality to be a factor in their RPT processes. We conclude that collegiality likely plays an important role in RPT processes, whether it is explicitly acknowledged in policies and guidelines or not, and point to several strategies in how it might be best incorporated in the assessment of academic careers.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2021

How faculty define quality, prestige, and impact in research

Despite the calls for change, there is significant consensus that when it comes to evaluating publications, review, promotion, and tenure processes should aim to reward research that is of high "quality," has an "impact," and is published in "prestigious" journals. Nevertheless, such terms are highly subjective and present challenges to ascertain precisely what such research looks like. Accordingly, this article responds to the question: how do faculty from universities in the United States and Canada define the terms quality, prestige, and impact? We address this question by surveying 338 faculty members from 55 different institutions. This studys findings highlight that, despite their highly varied definitions, faculty often describe these terms in overlapping ways. Additionally, results shown that marked variance in definitions across faculty does not correspond to demographic characteristics. This studys results highlight the need to more clearly implement evaluation regimes that do not rely on ill-defined concepts. Financial DisclosureFunding for this project was provided to JPA, MTN, ECM, and LAS from the OpenSociety Foundations (OR2017-39637). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Related MaterialsOther publications related to this project, including a series of infographics summarizing findings, can be found at: https://www.scholcommlab.ca/research/rpt-project/ Survey responses can be found at the following publication: Niles, Meredith T.; Schimanski, Lesley A.; McKiernan, Erin C.; Alperin, Juan Pablo,2020, "Data for: Why we publish where we do", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/MRLHNO, Harvard Dataverse, V1 Data regarding RPT documents can be found at the following data publication: Alperin, Juan Pablo; Munoz Nieves, Carol; Schimanski, Lesley; McKiernan, Erin C.;Niles, Meredith T., 2018, "Terms and Concepts found in Tenure and Promotion Guidelines from the US and Canada", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/VY4TJE, Harvard Dataverse, V3, UNF:6:PQC7QoilolhDrokzDPxxyQ== [fileUNF]

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2020

From amazing work to I beg to differ - analysis of bioRxiv preprints that received one public comment till September 2019

While early commenting on studies is seen as one of the advantages of preprints, the nature of such comments, and the people who post them, have not been systematically explored. We analysed comments posted between 21 May 2015 and 9 September 2019 for 1,983 bioRxiv preprints that received only one comment. Sixty-nine percent of comments were posted by non-authors (n=1,366), and 31% by preprint authors (n=617). Twelve percent of non-author comments (n=168) were full review reports traditionally found during journal review, while the rest most commonly contained praises (n=577, 42%), suggestions (n=399, 29%), or criticisms (n=226, 17%). Authors comments most commonly contained publication status updates (n=354, 57%), additional study information (n=158, 26%), or solicited feedback for the preprints (n=65, 11%). Our study points to the value of preprint commenting, but further studies are needed to determine the role that comments play in shaping preprint versions and eventual journal publications.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2019

Why we publish where we do: Faculty publishing values and their relationship to review, promotion and tenure expectations

Using an online survey of academics at 55 randomly selected institutions across the US and Canada, we explore priorities for publishing decisions and their perceived importance within review, promotion, and tenure (RPT). We find that respondents most value journal readership, while they believe their peers most value prestige and related metrics such as impact factor when submitting their work for publication. Respondents indicated that total number of publications, number of publications per year, and journal name recognition were the most valued factors in RPT. Older and tenured respondents (most likely to serve on RPT committees) were less likely to value journal prestige and metrics for publishing, while untenured respondents were more likely to value these factors. These results suggest disconnects between what academics value versus what they think their peers value, and between the importance of journal prestige and metrics for tenured versus untenured faculty in publishing and RPT perceptions.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2018

Using a diabetes discussion forum and Wikipedia to detect the alignment of public interests and the research literature

BackgroundDiabetes is a chronic disease that affects millions of people worldwide. It is therefore unsurprising that there is a high volume of public discussions, resources, and research tackling various aspects of the disease. Over the last decade, more than hundred thousand research articles have been published by researchers and countless of online discussions have taken place on various online platforms. This study is an attempt to identify the areas of public interest, related to diabetes, by looking at online discussion forums and to evaluate their relationship to pages about diabetes found on Wikipedia and to the academic research about the topic. The main aim is to investigate the extent to which researchers are responding to the publics interests and concerns, and to the level of uptake of the research topics in the public sphere.\n\nMethodology/Principal findingsTo detect public interests and concerns in diabetes, we collected posts on a popular diabetes discussion forum (DiabeticConnect) and pages (articles) about diabetes published in Wikipedia. We also downloaded the titles and abstracts of research articles about diabetes from the Scopus database, all between 2008 and 2016. Tags assigned to each post in the discussion forum were used along with the post itself to compute a Labeled Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LLDA) model, which was then used to classify the Wikipedia pages and research articles. The resulting classifications were then used to compare the prevalence of the topics found in the discussion forum with those of the other two sources. The results show that while research articles and Wikipedia pages about diabetes focus on diabetes testing, treatments, and disease control, the public forum discussions focus on Type 2 diabetes, emotional support, and proper diet for diabetic patients. However, for some other topics there was an alignment in the relative rise and fall of interest across the three platforms.\n\nConclusions/SignificanceThe alignment and misalignment in the changes of relative interest over the various topics is evidence that the LLDA modelling can be useful for comparing a public corpus, like a diabetes forum, and an academic one, like research titles and abstracts. The success of using LLDA to classify research articles based on the tags assigned to posts in a public discussion forum shows that this a promising method for better understanding how the scientific community responds to public interests and needs, and, on the flip side, how the public takes up the language and topics discussed by the academic community.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2018

Making headlines: An analysis of US government-funded cancer research mentioned in online media

BackgroundConsiderable resources are devoted to producing knowledge about cancer, which in turn is disseminated to policymakers, practitioners, and the public. Online media are a key dissemination channel for cancer research. Yet which cancer research receives media attention is not well understood. Understanding the characteristics of journal articles that receive media attention is crucial to optimize research dissemination.\n\nMethodsThis cross-sectional study examines journal articles on cancer funded by the US government published in 2016, using data from PubMed and Altmetric to determine whether an article received online media attention. Frequencies and proportions were calculated to describe the cancer types and continuum stages covered in journal articles.\n\nResults16.8% of articles published on US government-funded research were covered in the media. Published journal articles addressed all common cancers. Roughly one-fourth to one-fifth of journal articles within each cancer category received online media attention. Media mentions were disproportionate to actual burden of each cancer type (ie, incidence and mortality), with breast cancer articles receiving the most media mentions. Cancer prevention and control articles received less online media attention than diagnosis or therapy articles.\n\nConclusionFindings revealed a mismatch between prevalent cancers and cancers highlighted in the media. Further, journal articles on cancer control and prevention received less media attention than other cancer continuum stages. Media mentions were not proportional to actual public cancer burden nor volume of scientific publications in each cancer category. Results highlight a need for continued research on the role of media, especially online media, in research dissemination.

scientific communication and education↗