bioRxiv Science⌕ Search

Biology subjects

Strinzel, M.

Publications and source records attributed to Strinzel, M..

3 recordsLinked to original sources

SciCV, the Swiss National Science Foundation's new CV format

BackgroundThe Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) tested a new CV format called SciCV to encourage fair, DORA-compliant assessment of grant applicants. It was developed in close collaboration with the academic evaluation community and international experts, introduced through detailed change management and finally tested in its utility by an independent research team of the Center for Science and Technology Studies Leiden (CWTS). MethodsWe present the development of the SciCV pilot and its evaluation by the CWTS research group. The analysis comprised both quantitative and qualitative methods, with (i) surveys and semi-structured interviews with applicants and reviewers, (ii) text analysis of the narrative elements of SciCV, and (iii) participant observation in ten evaluation panel meetings. ResultsNarrative elements and the inclusion of the academic age were rated as most useful new CV elements, while the inclusion of two metrics, the h-index and the relative citation ratio, were received more critically. The omission of a full publication list had similar numbers of supporters and opponents among applicants and reviewers. Less experienced and junior applicants and reviewers rated the new format generally more positively than more senior applicants and reviewers. The text analysis of narrative elements yielded no significant gender specific differences. The participant observation revealed that the new elements in SciCV broadened the information base used in the evaluation of applicants but did not fundamentally alter traditional, publication-centred evaluation practices. ConclusionSciCV was a relevant and successful initiative for the SNSF, which showed that the implementation of a new, well-structured CV format is not only feasible but also something that many stakeholders welcome.The extensive experience and results obtained during the change process formed the basis for the development of SciCV 2.0 at the SNSF. It also offers a basis and guidance for other funding organisations planning similar initiatives.

scientific communication and education↗

Inflated citations and metrics of journals discontinued from Scopus for publication concerns: the GhoS(t)copus Project

Background Scopus is considered a leading bibliometric database. It contains the largest number of abstracts and articles cited in peer reviewed publications. The journals included in Scopus are periodically re-evaluated to ensure they meet indexing criteria. Afterwards, some journals might be discontinued for publication concerns. Despite their discontinuation, previously published articles remain indexed and continue to be cited. The metrics and characteristics of journals discontinued for publication concerns have yet to be studied. This study aimed (1) to evaluate the main features and citation metrics of journals discontinued from Scopus for publication concerns, before and after discontinuation, and (2) to determine the extent of predatory journals among the discontinued journals.Materials and Methods Eight authors surveyed a list of discontinued journals from Scopus (version July 2019). Data regarding metrics, citations and indexing were extracted from Scopus or other scientific databases, for the journals discontinued for publication concerns.Results A total of 317 journals were evaluated. The mean number of citations per year after discontinuation was significantly higher than before (median of difference 64 citations, p<0.0001), and so was the number of citations per document (median of difference 0.4 citations, p<0.0001). The total number of citations after discontinuation was 607,261, with a median of 713 citations (IQR 254-2056, range 0-19468) per journal. The open access publishing model was declared for 93% (294/317) of the journals, but only nine of these are currently indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). Twenty-two percent (72/317) of the journals were included in the Cabell blacklist.Conclusions The citation count of journals discontinued for publication concerns, increases despite discontinuation. Countermeasures should be taken to ensure the validity and reliability of Scopus metrics both at journal- and author-level for the purpose of scientific assessment of publishing.View Full Text

scientific communication and education↗

Who reviews for predatory journals? A study on reviewer characteristics

BackgroundWhile the characteristics of scholars who publish in predatory journals are relatively well-understood, nothing is known about the scholars who review for these journals. We aimed to answer the following questions: Can we observe patterns of reviewer characteristics for scholars who review for predatory journals and for legitimate journals? Second, how are reviews for potentially predatory journals distributed globally? MethodsWe matched random samples of 1,000 predatory journals and 1,000 legitimate journals of the Cabells Scholarly Analytics journal lists with the Publons database of review reports, using the Jaro-Winkler string metric. For reviewers of matched reviews, we descriptively analysed meta-data on reviewing and publishing behaviour. ResultsWe matched 183,743 unique Publons reviews that were claimed by 19,598 reviewers. 6,077 reviews were conducted for 1160 unique predatory journals (3.31% of all reviews). 177,666 were claimed for 6,403 legitimate journals (96.69% of all reviews). The vast majority of scholars either never or only occasionally submitted reviews for predatory journals to Publons (89.96% and 7.55% of all reviewers, respectively). Smaller numbers of scholars claimed reviews predominantly or exclusively for predatory journals (0.26% and 0.35% of all reviewers, respectively). The two latter groups of scholars are of younger academic age and have fewer publications and fewer reviews than the first two groups of scholars.Developing regions feature larger shares of reviews for predatory reviews than developed regions. ConclusionThe characteristics of scholars who review for potentially predatory journals resemble those of authors who publish their work in these outlets. In order to combat potentially predatory journals, stakeholders will need to adopt a holistic approach that takes into account the entire research workflow.

scientific communication and education↗