Join us in crowdsourcing journal policies May 31st: Which journals recognize co-reviews by graduate students and postdocs?

Join us in crowdsourcing journal policies May 31st: Which journals recognize co-reviews by graduate students and postdocs?

Data from an eLife Early Career Researcher Group survey   At a recent meeting about journal peer review, one of the key outcomes was the realization that there needs to be a greater effort to recognize the scholarly contributions of graduate students and postdocs.   “Ghostwriting” of peer reviews, whereby the name of graduate students and postdocs is not passed on to, acknowledged or collected by the journal, but is instead submitted solely under the name of the PI is an apparently widespread but unrecognized phenomenon. For example, data in a recent survey conducted by the eLife Early Career Researcher Group, showed that nearly 60% of graduate students and postdocs surveyed saw no involvement by their supervisor in preparing a peer review report.   It’s clear that a number of journals do recognize that early career researchers are involved in the peer review process – but which ones? What do they require in the reporting of co-reviewers, and what language sets the expectation for this reporting? To which journals can early career researchers be directing their efforts to participated in, and be recognized for, peer review? And by recognize, this does not mean publicly disclosing the names – merely that the journal editor knows who has really carried out the review, likely key data in a climate where it is claimed there are too few reviewers to carry out all peer review.   We are therefore excited to announce, as part of an upcoming project at Future of Research on recognizing the contribution of and empowering early career researchers, that we are partnering with a number of actors in this space...
Upcoming Minisymposium on Reproducibility

Upcoming Minisymposium on Reproducibility

There are numerous efforts under way by a variety of stakeholders to make research more reproducible, through increased transparency and data- and resource-sharing initiatives. What tools are available, what experiments are currently under way, and what best practices are emerging in the drive to facilitate greater reproducibility?   On Wednesday May 9th 2018, Addgene and the Harvard GSAS Science Policy Group will host a Minisymposium on Reproducibility to discuss these issues, which you can attend in-person or remotely:   Talks 3:10 – 3:30 – Reproducibility Overview – Jefrey S. Flier, Researcher at Harvard Medical School, former dean of Harvard Medical School 3:35 – 3:55 – Reagent sharing – Susanna Bachle, Addgene the nonprofit plasmid repository 4:00 – 4:20 – Reagent Development – Steven C. Almo, Institute for Protein Innovation Panel 4:25 – 4:55 Alex Tucker (Ginkgo Bioworks) Pamela Hines (Senior Editor at Science) Edward J. Hall (Professor of Philosophy at Harvard University) Tony Cijsouw (Neuroscience postdoc at Tufts University) Happy Hour Join the Harvard GSAS Science Policy Group for a networking happy hour following the event!   You can register here to attend in-person in Boston (3:00pm – 6:00pm, New Research Building Room 350, 77 Avenue Louis Pasteur, Boston).   Alternatively, you can view remotely on YouTube here (no registration required).   Future of Research is excited to support this event!...
What a pilot course taught us about biomedical research data management practices

What a pilot course taught us about biomedical research data management practices

  This is a guest post by Adriana Bankston, who participated in the pilot phase of this course along with fellow Future of Research board member, Calvin Ho.   Training in research data management is critical for early career scientists. Proper data management is a responsible research practice that can facilitate collaboration and ensure that research outputs are properly generated, stored and made available for future use. In addition, it allows for discussions on measuring the scholarly influence and impact of such data, which is critical for the scientific training and career progression of early career scientists. Finally, this type of course is also valuable to organizations who rely on evidence-based resources to effect change in the scientific enterprise, including Future of Research (FoR).   In fall 2017, Elaine Martin, DA and Julie Goldman, MLIS, from The Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine at the Harvard Medical School, led the pilot phase of the Best Practices for Biomedical Research Data Management Massive Open Online Course supported by the NIH Big Data to Knowledge (BD2K) Initiative for Resource Development. The pilot phase of the course consisted in nine online modules (approximately 20 hours of content) focused on specific components of data management best practices. Module topics included the research data lifecycle, metadata, data access, curation, long-term storage and preservation, as well as data ownership and related institutional policies. It also discussed open access and open data sharing, measuring the impact of research data, and the role of librarians in working with researchers to facilitate their data management needs.   While specific aspects of the pilot phase of the course are...
“Changing Science” Twitter Chat with the Union of Concerned Scientists – July 25th 1-2pm EDT

“Changing Science” Twitter Chat with the Union of Concerned Scientists – July 25th 1-2pm EDT

Should we change science? What are the barriers to making change? Whose responsibility is it to change science and how do we engage all scientists and other stakeholders?   Join us and the Union of Concerned Scientists for a Twitter chat on “Changing science”, as part of a broader discussion of changes you would like to see in science and what ideas & resources our organizations can provide for changes towards open science, outreach, advocacy, and public engagement.     Follow #FORchangingscience on Tuesday, July 25, 2017 from 1-2 pm ET to participate in the discussion with @FORsymp and @SciNetUCS, and our guest participants: The EMCR Forum (@EMCRForum); The Center for Open Science (@OSFramework); The STEM Advocacy Group (@STEMadvocacy); Arturo Casadevall,  (professor and chair of the Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, @ACasadevall1); Andrew Hoffman (Holcim Professor of Sustainable Enterprise at the University of Michigan, @HoffmanAndy); Emily Cloyd (AAAS Public Engagement, @EngageClimate) and Esther Ngumbi (postdoc at Auburn Ngumbi, @EstherNgumbi). This event is co-hosted by the UCS Science Network: http://www.ucsusa.org/sciencenetwork...
Rigor and Reproducibility One Year Later: How Has the Biomedical Community Responded? A Workshop at the 2017 AAAS Meeting

Rigor and Reproducibility One Year Later: How Has the Biomedical Community Responded? A Workshop at the 2017 AAAS Meeting

This is a guest post by Future of Research policy activist, Adriana Bankston.     The AAAS meeting is a useful platform in which to discuss many important issues plaguing science today. Fundamental to the integrity of the scientific enterprise is being able to perform rigorous experiments at the bench, and successfully reproducing research findings. To this end, the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) has implemented Rigor and Reproducibility guidelines, which represent fundamental changes to the grant application and review process. These guidelines went into effect on January 25, 2016. A session at the 2017 AAAS meeting entitled “Rigor and Reproducibility One Year Later: How Has the Biomedical Community Responded?” explored the feedback received from both the NIH and the research community following these guidelines, and discussed how to best implement them to achieve both increased rates of reproducibility and dramatic returns on research funding investments.   The session was moderated by Leonard Freedman from Global Biological Standards Institute (GBSI), a non-profit organization dedicated to enhancing the credibility, reproducibility, and translatability of biomedical research through best practices and standards. One of their initiatives, Reproducibility2020, aims to significantly improve the quality of preclinical biological research by the year 2020. The session featured Michael Lauer from the National Institutes of Health and William Kaelin from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute as speakers, and Judith Kimble from the University of Wisconsin, Madison, also a member of the steering committee for Rescuing Biomedical Research, as the discussant.   Michael Lauer on p-hacking and cognitive biases Michael Lauer began his talk by discussing the John Ioannidis paper from 2005 entitled “Why Most Published Research...