Micropublishing During and After the COVID-19 Era

In the COVID-19 situation, social and behavioral science evidence is accumulating rapidly through online data collection, but the options to share and publish this information are scarce. As a remedy, I recommend the adoption of micropublishing in the fields of social and behavioral sciences. While micropublishing has been gaining popularity, it is not yet widely accepted or utilized by existing academic journals. Greater implementation would improve the availability of data in the immediate COVID-19 era and establish a post-COVID-19 publishing methodology that could increase researcher and practitioner engagement in real time. I recommend micropublishing in a specific manner that bifurcates an experiment's methodology or survey method from the subsequently published data based on that experiment protocol. Published findings could be presented in a series and edited as new data emerges. This publishing system promotes cumulative science. To provide a visual example that supports my argument, I created a demo journal with sample papers organized according to the structure I recommend. The demo journal has features-except a Digital Object Finder (DOI)-that make it possible to publish social and behavioral sciences research. It could be replicated for a newly established journal. Alternatively, existing journals could add a section dedicated to micropublication. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)

Early career researchers and predatory journals during the Covid-19 pandemic. An international analysis

Around 170 early career researchers (ECRs) from 8 countries were interviewed about the whole range of their scholarly communication attitudes/behaviours during pandemic times and this paper analyses what they said about predatory journals in a wide range of scholarly communication contexts. Because of the delicacy of the topic there was just one question exclusively directed at predatory journals, which asked about policies rather than actions, which yielded nevertheless wide-ranging comments on the topic. ECRs also volunteered information on predatory journals in another half dozen questions, most notably including one on questionable research practices. The source of data was mainly the final interview of three undertaken, with some comparisons made to rounds one and two. Findings disclose the existence of a whole raft of formal and informal assessment policies/codes that direct ECRs to legitimate journals and away from predatory ones. Despite being junior, ECRs are very accultured to the criteria of what is considered as prestige and quality and believe predatory publishing is not even conceivable. They are far more concerned about low-quality research, preprints and borderline ‘grey' journals. The pandemic has increased the level of questionable practices and low-quality research, but predatory journals were only singled out by a relatively small number of ECRs. © 2023, El Profesional de la Informacion. All rights reserved.

Scientific priorities and relational dynamics during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study.

To rapidly respond to the COVID-19 public health crisis, researchers have been called upon to prioritize pandemic research, while simultaneously modifying their existing research to maintain the safety of all stakeholders. This study aims to explore the experiences of health science researchers in their scientific practices, research priorities, and professional relational dynamics due to COVID-19. Specifically, we interviewed 31 researchers from diverse fields at the University of Texas Medical Branch. Participants worked on COVID-19, non-COVID-19 related research, or both. We integrated inductive and deductive coding using a thematic coding method. The following four themes were explored: 1) impact of research, 2) research priorities, 3) professional relationships and 4) contextual influences on science. Participants were drawn to COVID-19 work for a diversity of reasons including social need, scientific interest, professional duty, and increased access to funding opportunities. While collaborations have increased for COVID-19 researchers, interpersonal relationships have been challenging for participants. Additionally, political, familial, and personal stresses due to the pandemic have taken a toll on researchers in very different and often inequitable ways. To ensure team cohesion, there is a need to develop research practices, policies and systems that value empathy, flexibility, and interdependence.

The integrity of the research record: a mess so big and so deep and so tall.

SUMMARY: Poor research integrity is increasingly recognised as a serious problem in science. We outline some evidence for this claim and introduce the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) journals' Research Integrity Group, which has been created to address this problem.

Adapting Disability Research Methods and Practices During the Covid-19 Pandemic: Experiences from the Field*†

People with disabilities are often excluded from research, which may be exacerbated during the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. This article provides an overview of key challenges, opportunities, and strategies for conducting disability-inclusive research during the pandemic, drawing on the experience of research teams working across ten countries on disability-focused studies. It covers adaptations that are relevant across the project lifecycle, including maintaining ethical standards and safeguarding;enabling active participation of people with disabilities;adapting remote research data collection tools and methods to meet accessibility, feasibility, and acceptability requirements;and promoting inclusive and effective analysis and dissemination. While this article is focused on adaptations during the pandemic, it is highly likely that the issues and strategies highlighted here will be relevant going forward, either in similar crises or as the world continues to move towards greater digital communication and connectedness. © 2022 The Authors, IDS Bulletin © Institute of Development Studies and Crown Copyright 2022.

STEM vs non-STEM differences in university teaching and research during the COVID-19 pandemic: the case of Sri Lanka

Purpose: This study aims to explore the differences between science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) and non-STEM disciplines in terms of the changes to teaching and research practices caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Design/methodology/approach: The paper analyses survey responses collected between July and November 2020 from 241 academics (excluding library staff) from the five oldest state universities in Sri Lanka. The analysis focuses on the differences between STEM and non-STEM faculty using multiple linear regression to control for demographic characteristics such as age, gender and designation as well as university-specific factors. Findings: The paper finds significant differences in the teaching practices of STEM and non-STEM academics, both in terms of preparation time for teaching and tools used for online delivery. Significant differences are also observed in research practices, with STEM faculty being significantly more likely to engage in research collaborations, obtain research funding and be involved in more research projects. The authors do not find any evidence of the pandemic having differential impacts on research productivity between the broad disciplines. Originality/value: This research provides insights into the differences between STEM and non-STEM disciplines in online teaching and research practices adopted since the onset of the pandemic, which are important for formulating appropriate policy responses to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on both students and staff. The contribution is particularly significant for developing countries where the creation of a skilled workforce is a key driver of the development process. © 2022, Emerald Publishing Limited.

Exploring COVID-19 research credibility among Spanish scientists.

Amidst a worldwide vaccination campaign, trust in science plays a significant role when addressing the COVID-19 pandemic. Given current concerns regarding research standards, we were interested in how Spanish scholars perceived COVID-19 research and the extent to which questionable research practices and potentially problematic academic incentives are commonplace. We asked researchers to evaluate the expected quality of their COVID-19 projects and other peers' research and compared these assessments with those from scholars not involved in COVID-19 research. We investigated self-admitting and estimated rates of questionable research practices and attitudes towards current research status. Responses from 131 researchers suggested that COVID-19 evaluations followed partisan lines, with scholars being more pessimistic about others' colleagues' research than their own. Additionally,researchers not involved in COVID-19 projects were more negative than their participating peers. These differences were particularly notable for areas such as the expected theoretical foundations or overall quality of the research, among others. Most Spanish scholars expected questionable research practices and inadequate incentives to be widespread. In these two aspects, researchers tended to agree regardless of their involvement in COVID-19 research. We provide specific recommendations for improving future meta-science studies, such as redefining QRPs as inadequate research practices (IRP). This change could help avoid key controversies regarding QRPs' definition while highlighting their detrimental impact. Lastly, we join previous calls to improve transparency and academic career incentives as a cornerstone for generating trust in science. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-022-02797-6.