On Monday I attended the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) European Seminar in Leiden.  Cope has been around for over 20 years, and began as a relatively informal group of concerned journal editors, and has grown since then into an organisation supporting editors, authors, peer-reviewers and publishers.  COPE intends to start a programme for university members as part of its new strategic plan.  Publishers and editors who raise ethical issues with universities often are faced with a wall of silence and are not informed about the outcomes of investigations, as universities seek to maintain privacy. What follows are some notes on the discussions of the four of the  main topics covered at Monday’s seminar.

Text Recycling

The first session of the day looked at Text Recycling – and the findings of some research undertaken in the US through the Text Recycling Research Project – textrecycling.org.

Text recycling is ethically neutral – sometimes it is appropriate and is not always inherently inappropriate.  It is often known as ‘self-plagiarism’ – but as one publisher later remarked – sometime the ‘self-‘ part is lost and people end up discussion plagiarism, which is quite distinct from text recycling.

The research surveyed around 300 editors of top journals across STEM, social sciences and humanities.  The responses indicate that editors apply different standards as editors than they do when they are authors.

Copyright law is inherently jurisdictional.  Across most jurisdictions, there are no laws which address the issue of text recycling.  Scholarly publications were not the publications people has in mind when they were designing the copyright laws.  Almost universally, authors are the initial holders of rights in their work – with the exception of a handful of universities with assert ownership. But, authors transfer rights to publishers.  This makes it difficult for authors to be able to re-use work in a publication by a different publisher.  Fair use could cover this so we need to make sure that authors use their rights on fair dealing as asking for permission when it isn’t necessary erodes authors rights and sets new legal precedents.  Once example was given from the publishing contact of the New England Journal of Medicine which actually cited US Fair Use law in the contract – but how would that apply to an author from another jurisdiction?

The next phase of the work will be looking at model guidelines, contracts, policies etc., which can be adopted by anyone.  So – there will be more to come on this.

Predatory Publishing

Defining predatory publishing is a problematic activity because new journals and young journals will have similar practices.  In practice – there are a number of reasons why predatory publishers continue to operate.  Authors whose English is not that good find it harder to get published in reputable journals.  Reviewers can’t be bothered to work through broken English so good research is overlooked because of language issues.  International pressure on rankings means authors are under pressure to publish and some researchers hope that recruitment panels won’t look in too much details at the venue and just count the publications on a CV.

So, what is to be done?  COPE was behind the Think. Check. Submit. initiative to encourage authors to be aware of predatory or bogus journals.  In 2019, the Federal Trade Commission in the US took OMICS to court and they received a fine of $50.1M. There is definitely a role for institutions to play in helping to educate authors.

Countries have become globally competitive about the status of their universities.  Makes a job that should be a passion and a love, and turns it into some crazy thing.  We can’t expect everyone to publish in top-citation English language journals.

Predatory publishing is a large problem and is centred in India in the Hyderabad region.  At one recent meeting, a representative of one organisation which publishes everything it receives, made a representation that they thought that COPE was causing the elitist system through insisting on the application of peer review!  He thought they were giving more researchers a voice by publishing everything. So, this shows that there are genuinely-felt differences of viewpoint on this matter.

Retraction Guidelines Update

There will be separate guidance for expressions of concern, letters to the editor and commentaries, and for corrigenda and errata. The main purpose of retraction is to correct the literature and to retain the integrity of the research record and not to punish authors.  Unreliable data could result from honest mistakes, naive errors or research malpractice.

Partial retractions are not helpful as they call the whole article into question.  Corrections are a better route to follow. Sometimes editors can jump straight to retraction before considering all the options available to them.

People worry that retractions undermine science but actually it is part of the process of earning and maintaining trust.  Elsevier point out that people only have to deal with these issues very rarely, so it’s important to have clear guidance.  If an article is in a subscription journal they make it open access on retraction.  We need to recognise that misconduct is a systematic characteristic of science.  Retractions get a lot of attention – but it is not always the best approach.  Elsevier retract about 200-220 articles per years – so about 1 in 5000.

At Elsevier, all retractions need to be approved by a panel of three Elsevier staff.  It is an Editor’s decision to retract, if approved by the staff.  There is also a “tombstone process” so that readers can see what was once there.  Elsevier use a series of templates for editors to use in the retraction process and authors always are informed.

Editors need to be aware that they do not necessarily understand all the pressures people are under and that they don’t know what else is going on in their loves.  Also, that they don’t know what the impact of this retraction will be – but that it is very likely to have an impact on the author’s career.

Ben Goldacre is working on “retract-o-bot”.  https://ebmdatalab.net/retractobot/  This should alert authors when an article they cite is retracted.

One audience member pointed out that universities are gaming the publication system – publish or perish and the whole impact factor “fetish” has gone too far.  This is one of the reasons why COPE is seeking to get universities as members, although it is also recognised that these concepts are very deeply ingrained in many institutions and disciplines.   Some EU funder panels are now insisting that applicants do not use H-index and impact factors in application forms and CVs – so change may start to come.

Ethical Considerations for Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences Editors

COPE has commissioned some work to be done with Routledge to better understand the ethics challenges faced by AHSS journal editors.  COPE was previously perceived as being very STM focussed and this is something they wish to change.

The most widespread ethical problem in AHSS publishing is addressing language and writing-quality barriers whilst remaining inclusive.  In AHSS we are not just dealing with data all the time but with people’s opinions – so disputes can be much more inflammatory.   There have been issues with hoax articles with people trying to discredit gender and identity studies.  There is also a problem of  tensions between quality and global representation – more attention should be paid to peer-reviewer diversity. Political differences between authors and editors can be very problematic for journals.  There are currently few opportunities for mentoring of early-career researchers in publication ethics in AHSS subjects – something which should be improved.

From my point of view there is considerable scope for research libraries, and in particular those of us working in scholarly communications to take more of a lead to engage our authors with the ethical matters to do with publication, peer-review and editorial activities, and this is something I shall be seeking to develop with the team at Edinburgh.

-Dominic Tate, Head of Library Research Support

The Research Data Support team is pleased to announce the launch of the first in a series of updates to MANTRA, the free and open online research data management training course.

The first updated module ‘Research data in context’ (previously ‘Research data explained’) is now live on the MANTRA site and provides an introduction to research data, alongside detail on the contexts in which data are generated, and the challenges presented by big data in society.

MANTRA is designed to give post-graduate students, early career researchers, and information professionals the knowledge and skills needed to work effectively with research data.

Since launching in 2011, MANTRA has been through a number of significant rewrites to keep up with current trends, and over 10,000 different learners have visited MANTRA in the last academic year.

The ‘Research data in context’ module has been substantially revised in order to:

• remove dated and obsolete content;
• simplify and improve the readability of existing material;
• add information on data literacy and data science.

The changes in this module include:

• Revised pages: Introduction; Why is research data management important?; What are data?; What are research data?; Data as research output; Module Summary; Next & further reading.

• New pages: Data in society; Data Science; Video: machine learning; Data literacy and skills.

A change log detailing all changes in this release is available on request from the Research Data Support team (data-support@ed.ac.uk).

We hope you find this update interesting and useful and welcome any feedback you may have.

Further MANTRA updates are forthcoming, focusing on FAIR data and newer data protection legislation and we will announce these in future blog posts.

Bob Sanders
Research Data Support

            Bolognese Book by Madeleine Leisk CC BY-NC

One of the best parts of working at the University of Edinburgh is their focus on professional development. Staff can enhance their experience at work through online courses, workshops, training events and international experiences. I recently had the chance to undertake one of these opportunities through a University of Edinburgh Erasmus staff trip to the University of Bologna Library (La Biblioteca Universitaria di Bologna or “BUB”). It was a uniquely challenging and wonderful experience that has had an immensely positive impact on my work and I would encourage all staff that can, to consider taking an Erasmus trip.

Applying for Erasmus

I first learnt about the Erasmus funding available for staff through a colleague who had received funding to travel to the Netherlands. This funding can be used for different types of staff training  including workshops, teaching (for academic staff), and staff training weeks. I knew that I would benefit most from the experience of job-shadowing at an institution that was comparable to the University of Edinburgh. The University of Bologna was at the top of my list. Established in 1088, the University has an incredible history and is often referred to as the oldest university in the (Western) world. They are also forward-thinking in their approach to the future of library and university collections with a strong emphasis on digitisation, a free online Information Literacy Tutorial and an MA in Digital Humanities and Digital Knowledge. The city of Bologna has a thriving literary culture, much like Edinburgh, and has a myriad of public and specialist libraries throughout the city. I had also been learning Italian for the past year and thought that this would be a great (albeit terrifying) way to put my language skills to the test.

When choosing a destination, I would suggest that you look for opportunities with institutions that you already have a working relationship with or speak with colleagues who have connections with relevant institutions. That being said, I did not have any connection to the University of Bologna but I knew that it would be an invaluable opportunity. After receiving approval from my Line Manager, I wrote a letter to one of the library coordinators outlining who I was and why I was contacting them. I approached it as I would a job application and included information about my current job, why I was interested in learning about the University of Bologna Library, a proposal for what I could do as part of an Erasmus trip, and my CV. After receiving an offer to visit from the BUB, I filled out the relevant paperwork and submitted my application to the University of Edinburgh Go Abroad Office. Throughout the process, the office was very helpful in assisting me with my application and was quick to respond to any questions that I had. Before I knew it, it was March and I was off to Bologna.

Bologna, here I come

My first day in Bologna was a nerve-wracking experience. I wanted to make the most out of my trip and enthusiastically engage with my Bolognese counterparts, but I was concerned that my efforts would be impeded by the language barrier. Although I had been working on my Italian, I knew that I would struggle to hold a conversation, particularly with technical terms. I was relieved to find that my host for the week Signor Nerozzi, scientific coordinator at the BUB, was very skilled in his English and was able to ease the difficulties of language and even cultural barriers.

Signor Nerozzi had prepared an exciting week of activities for me that included meetings with his colleagues, guided tours, personal research, and attending a guest lecture. It was a very busy week, but I learnt a lot, particularly about day-to-day user services, how they manage their collections (which included a robotic storage system!), and their forward-thinking approach to digitising their materials. I also attended a guest lecture by mobile type publisher Enrico Tallone as part of La Grande Festa delle Lettere. It was a fascinating exploration of the psychology behind typography and the history of some of the most popular fonts. In addition to the BUB, I also had the opportunity to visit other Bolognese libraries, including the Archiginnasio and the Salaborsa. The library system in Bologna is unique as in addition to the availability of libraries, including subject-specific libraries like the Biblioteca della Musica (The Music Library) and the Biblioteca delle Donne (The Women’s Library), they are also interconnected as civic libraries, including the BUB. The historic Salaborsa was the most interesting public library I have ever had the pleasure of visiting. It had the feel of the public libraries that I grew up frequenting and was clearly in high demand (there was even a crowd waiting for the library to open on Monday afternoon!), but it also had beautiful architecture, an interesting history (it was built on ruins from 189 BCE, that you can still visit today), arts exhibitions, and community resources like language classes. It was a vital part of the community and a great reminder of the importance of libraries and the people who staff them.

Overall, my week in Bologna was a wonderful whirlwind (and I didn’t even mention all of the gelato and pasta!). I learnt a great deal about library work, particularly user services, and it was a really unique experience. Everyone that I met was incredibly friendly and helpful and I cannot thank Signor Nerozzi and La Biblioteca Universitaria di Bologna enough for hosting me. I also really appreciate all of the help from the Go Abroad Office in preparation for my trip. This experience has helped me to view my job in a new light and be more creative in my approach to work. It was a very eye-opening experience and I highly recommend the experience to other University of Edinburgh staff.

You can learn more about the libraries in Bologna here and the University of Edinburgh Go Abroad office and opportunities here.

Madeleine Leisk, UCF Library Assistant