Publier La Science - Numéro 05

Jeanine Martelli, Eric Lichtfouse, Marjolaine Hamelin, Virginie Lelièvre

► To cite this version:

Jeanine Martelli, Eric Lichtfouse, Marjolaine Hamelin, Virginie Lelièvre. Publier La Science - Numéro 05. INRAE., 14 p, 2014, Guy Richard. hal-03862487

HAL Id: hal-03862487

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-03862487

Submitted on 21 Nov 2022

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
publier
la science

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

numéro 05 / septembre 2014

- Einstein hated peer-review

- Citing Wikipedia in articles

- What to do when you are rejected
# PUBLIER LA SCIENCE

## Numéro 5, septembre 2014

<table><tr><td>EDITORIAL</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>RESEAUX SOCIAUX</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>REDACTION</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>METRIQUES ET IMPACT</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>LIBRE ACCES</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>EVALUATION</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>DROIT D'AUTEUR</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>ETHIQUE ET FRAUDE</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>PROCESSUS DE PUBLICATION</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>COLLOQUES</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>OUTILS</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>HUMOUR</td><td>13</td></tr></table>

Numéros en accès libre à https://listes.inra.fr/sympa/d_read/veillecaps

Pour vous abonner : https://listes.inra.fr/sympa/subscribe/veillecaps

Pour vous désabonner : https://listes.inra.fr/sympa/sigrequest/veillecaps

**Directeur de la publication** : Guy Richard

**Editeur-en-chef** : Eric Lichtfouse

**Réalisation** : Jeanine Martelli (responsable de la veille), Eric Lichtfouse (animateur de la CAPS), Marjolaine Hamelin, Virginie Lelièvre

Cellule d'Assistance à la Publication Scientifique (CAPS)

Département Environnement et Agronomie (EA)

Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique

Contact : caps.departea@orleans.inra.fr, http://www.ea.inra.fr

Couverture : Guillaume Decaux – http://www.alcide.fr

ISSN 2269-7314

Publier la Science est une sélection d'informations sur la publication et la rédaction scientifique diffusée trimestriellement. Dans un souci de synthèse et de lisibilité, les informations diffusées sont parfois modifiées par rapport à leurs versions originales sans pour autant en dénaturer le sens. S'il s'avère toutefois que ce n'est pas le cas, les personnes et sources citées dans Publier la Science peuvent à tout moment, demander la rectification voire la suppression des informations diffusées les concernant en nous écrivant à caps.departea@orleans.inra.fr.
Editorial invité

100000ème article de PLOS ONE : buzz ou progrès scientifique ?

Je reste très circonspect devant cette course à la publication qui consiste maintenant à payer 1350 $ par article à PLOS ONE¹ pour être publié... Cette revue a publié 100 000 articles seulement 7,5 ans après le lancement ! Le taux d'acceptation de 70 % est supérieur à celui des grandes revues, de 10 à 15 %, et des revues de spécialités, de 15 à 35 % environ. Est-ce un progrès ? Oui pour la rapidité de publication. Par contre pour la qualité du *peer-review*, j'entends le meilleur et le pire. Si vous voulez vous gaver des cocoricos de PLOS ONE, allez sur leur blog² : il n'y a que des records... A ce rythme, nous fêterons les 200 000 dans 3 ans, les 300 000 dans 5 ans puis 100 000 nouveaux par an... Cela se nomme le progrès ! Un seul journal va donc bientôt représenter plus de 5 % des articles inclus dans Medline chaque année. Dans le même temps, certains se gaussent de l'article le plus vu sur PLOS Medicine, avec 1 000 000 *views* entre août 2005 et avril 2014, dont le titre est *Why most published research findings are false*?³... Et si c'était vrai ? Cela n'inquiète pas les coureurs de fond de la publication... Le rêve d'avoir de bonnes publications est définitivement oublié, compte tenu du mode de promotion dans les organisations.

Hervé Maisonneuve

Auteur du blog Rédaction Médicale et Scientifique (www.h2mw.eu/redactionmedicale) et de l'ouvrage Rédaction Médicale (Doin, 2010). Consultant en rédaction et formation professionnelle. Co-rédacteur du *Science Editor's Handbook* de l'association européenne des éditeurs scientifiques (http://www.ease.org.uk).

1. PLOS ONE est une des mégarevues en accès libre de l'entreprise californienne *Public Library of Science* (PLOS). http://www.plos.org.

2. http://blogs.plos.org/everyone/2014/06/23/plos-one-publishes-100000th-article/

3. http://blogs.plos.org/speakingofmedicine/2014/06/23/one-one-million-article-views-qa-author-john-ioannidis/
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124
# Réseaux sociaux

## Scientists and the social network

Observatoire des technologies Inra, 22 août 2014

L'article que publie Richard Van Noorden dans Nature ce mois-ci est très intéressant car il présente sous une forme particulièrement éclairante et lisible les résultats d'une enquête initiée par le journal en mai dernier et à laquelle 3500 personnes issues de 95 pays ont répondu. L'utilisation des principaux réseaux est analysée finement. Le lecteur gagne à lire la version html plutôt que le pdf car l'auteur propose une visualisation graphique et dynamique de l'utilisation de chaque plateforme classée par utilisation décroissante d'un panel de répondants jugés suffisamment "actifs". Researchgate, Academia.edu, Mendeley, Twitter, Linkedin et Facebook sont ainsi examinés à la loupe.

[...] L'affichage de leurs profils personnels, un gain de visibilité professionnelle dans le but de générer des contacts avec d'autres chercheurs semble être le moteur principal des inscriptions. Les autres arguments positifs sont les possibilités de partage de contenus, de contacts étendus, l'accès facile à des documents très pertinents et recommandés, l'utilisation de métriques nouvelles d'évaluation de leurs travaux. L'article pointe aussi les critiques connues : des utilisateurs (pratique intensive du spam, création artificielle de profils) et des éditeurs vis à vis de ces plateformes (dépôt ou captation abusifs et illégaux de documents ...). Il évoque enfin les dispositifs innovants de ces plateformes (par exemple, post-publication reviewing) et les perspectives positives et négatives possibles.

http://ist.blogs.inra.fr/technologies/2014/08/22/les-scientifiques-et-les-reseaux-sociaux-une-super-synthese-a-lire/

Van Noorden, R. (2014). *Scientists and the social network*. Nature, **512**, 126-129

## Survey on academics' use of social media

Blog This Sociological Life, Australie. 10 juin 2014

This report outlines findings from an international online survey of 711 academics about their use of social media as part of their work conducted in January 2014. The survey sought to identify the tools that the respondents used, those they found most useful and the benefits and the drawbacks of using social media as a university faculty member or postgraduate student. The results offer insights into the sophisticated and strategic ways in which some academics are using social media and the many benefits they have experienced for their academic work. These benefits included connecting and

establishing networks not only with other academics but also people or groups outside universities, promoting openness and sharing of information, publicising and development of research and giving and receiving support. While the majority of the respondents were very positive about using social media, they also expressed a range of concerns. These included issues of privacy and the blurring of boundaries between personal and professional use, the risk of jeopardising their career through injudicious use of social media, lack of credibility, the quality of the content they posted, time pressures, social media use becoming an obligation, becoming a target of attack, too much self-promotion by others, possible plagiarism of their ideas and the commercialisation of content and copyright issues. The report ends by contextualising the findings within the broader social and political environment and outlining areas for future research.

http://simplysociology.wordpress.com/2014/06/10/survey-on-academics-use-of-social-media/

## Using crowdsourcing to evaluate published scientific literature

Brown AW, Allison DB (2014) *Using Crowdsourcing to Evaluate Published Scientific Literature: Methods and Example*. PLoS ONE 9 (7): e100647. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0100647

Systematically evaluating scientific literature is a time consuming endeavor that requires hours of coding and rating. Here, we describe a method to distribute these tasks across a large group through online crowdsourcing. Using Amazon's Mechanical Turk, crowdsourced workers (microworkers) completed four groups of tasks to evaluate the question "Do nutrition-obesity studies with conclusions concordant with popular opinion receive more attention in the scientific community than do those that are discordant?" [...] We discuss important points to consider to ensure good quality control and appropriate pay for microworkers. With good reliability and low cost, crowdsourcing has potential to evaluate published literature in a cost-effective, quick, and reliable manner using existing, easily accessible resources

## Social media exposes flaws in scientific journals

Blog Social times, 16 juillet 2014

Many researchers still balk at the idea of social media checks and balances of scientific papers, but post-publication, crowd-sourced social media have been identifying errors missed by peer reviewers and editors. [...] While time and quality control on social media may indeed be challenging, science can no longer rely on an honor system or blind trust. If
editors and reviewers are not taking the extra steps necessary to determine the validity of scientific works, social media provides an open, public venue for checks and balances [...] "But to those of us who have gone ahead and joined these online communities, it's clear that they work. And as more scientists figure out how to integrate them into their professional lives, post-publication review will only get better."

http://socialtimes.com/social-media-exposes-flaws-scientific-journals_b200162

## Accompagnement de la communication scientifique et nouveaux médias

ADIT, BE Etats-Unis 375, 27 juin 2014

Avec d'un côté un public intéressé par la recherche scientifiques et de l'autre des chercheurs désireux de communiquer leurs résultats, l'équation semble simple. Pourtant, plusieurs études montrent l'insatisfaction des chercheurs à l'égard des canaux de communication à leur disposition : les revues scientifiques fondées sur le principe d'examen par les pairs sont l'objet de critiques, la couverture de l'information par les médias traditionnels suscite des appréhensions et les médias sociaux restent majoritairement méconnus. Pour pallier ce problème, les institutions américaines de recherche et d'enseignement supérieur professionnalisent et développent l'accompagnement de la communication scientifique...

http://www.bulletins-electroniques.com/actualites/76278.htm

## Ten simple rules of live tweeting at scientific conferences

Ekins S, Perlstein EO (2014) Ten Simple Rules of Live Tweeting at Scientific Conferences. PLoS Comput Biol 10(8): e1003789. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003789

Rule 1: Short Conference Hashtag

Rule 2: Promote the Hashtag

Rule 3: Encourage Tweeting

Rule 4: Conference Twitter Etiquette

Rule 5: Conference Tweet Layout

Rule 6: Keep Conference Discussion Flowing

Rule 7: Differentiate Your Opinions from the Speaker's

Rule 8: Bring Questions up from Outside

Rule 9: Meet Other Live Tweeters Face to Face

Rule 10: Emphasize Impact of Live Tweeting

http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.1003789

# Rédaction

## How to cite social media in scholarly writing

Blog TeachThought (education & learning), 20 juillet 2014

When and in what contexts it makes sense to cite social media content is probably a more relevant post than sharing a graphic that simply shows the format, but they're both nice to have, yes? Citation Style. Of course, citation style matters, and the two most popular are the APA [American Psychological Association] and MLA [Modern Language Association] [...] As media becomes more nuanced, new modalities emerge, authors use new channels to distribute their thinking—and even as the “crowd” becomes a legitimate source of information (see wikipedia, twitter, etc.), new rules for governing that reality will continue to emerge. The more general those rules are, the less reactive governing bodies will have to be moment by moment.

http://www.teachthought.com/technology/how-to-cite-social-media-scholarly-writing/

## The tensions of scientific storytelling

American Scientist, R.Hoffman, juillet 2014

Simplicity pleases the mind. Some scientists claim that equations are likely to be correct because they are simple, or that molecules naturally assume more symmetric arrangements of atoms, or that multistep mechanisms for chemical reactions are less common than concerted one-fell-swoop reactions. What happens when the scientist's hard work reveals that the equation is messy, the molecule looks like an odd clump of pasta, and the mechanism has at least 17 steps? [...] Science has stories in it. Scientists shape those stories, and the protagonists of these stories need not be human. These narrative qualities are not only important to composing research papers, but also to effective teaching.

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/num2/2014/4/the-tensions-of-scientific-storytelling/1

## Une nouvelle lettre d'information du CIRAD

Cécile Fovet-Rabot, CIRAD

Le CIRAD vient de lancer une nouvelle lettre pour les chercheurs francophones et les spécialistes de l'information. Le premier numéro contient plusieurs articles utiles à la publication : comment définir les auteurs d'un article, pourquoi publier en libre accès, comment publier avec un partenaire privé, comment rédiger un poster, etc. Il est possible de s'abonner, trois numéros par an sont prévus.

http://coop-ist.cirad.fr/layout/set/newsletter/cooperation/la-lettre/newsletter/newsletter-coop-ist-n-1
## Crafting an appropriate running title

AJE Expert Edge, writing tips, 10 juin 2014

Many journals require that a running title, also known as a running head or short title, be included in submitted manuscripts. This shortened form of the main title, usually cited at the top of each published page of an article, serves to guide readers browsing a print journal, shuffling loose printed pages, or toggling between multiple papers in PDF form. The running head may also be used in RSS feeds and mobile applications instead of the frequently more unwieldy main title. Requirements for running titles vary between journals, but generally, they must be 50-60 characters long at most, often including spaces.

https://expertedge.aje.com/2014/06/10/editing-tip-of-the-week-crafting-an-appropriate-running-title/

## Handling digital images for publication

Jun Haeng Lee. *Sci Ed.* 2014;1(2):58-61. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.6087/kcse.2014.1.58

Currently, images in medical journals are produced in the form of digital image files. The quality of printed images can be easily recognized. However, what comprises the quality of a digital image file is more complex. Some images appear to have good quality when displayed on a computer monitor but do not have sufficient quality for scholarly publication. In this review, basic concepts of digital images for scholarly publication, such as resolution, raster images, and vector images, will be explained. The advantages and limitations of using PowerPoint for processing digital image files will also be touched on briefly.

## The really obvious (but all-too-often-ignored) guide to getting published

Sharmanedit blog, juillet 2014

The *post* gives five simple tips for getting your article published. They are :

1. Familiarize yourself with the journal you want to submit to

2. Make sure you nominate reviewers, if the journal gives you the option to do so

3. Don't make it glaringly obvious that your paper has been rejected by another journal

4. Learn how to write a paper before actually submitting one

5. Be persistent (when it's warranted)

http://cofactorscience.com/blog/june-highlights-from-the-world-of-scientific-publishing

## How to read and understand a scientific paper: A step-by-step guide for non-scientists

Sharmanedit blog, juillet 2014

The article [is] in the *Huffington Post* by @JenniferRaff, a postdoc at the University of Texas, entitled '*How to Read and Understand a Scientific Paper: A Step-by-Step Guide for Non-Scientists*' She tells readers to identify the 'big question' and the 'specific question' that the authors are trying to answer with their research, and then by reading the methods and results determine whether the results answer the specific question. If your paper is written so that the specific question and the answer to it are easy to find, you will get more readers and probably more citations.

http://cofactorscience.com/blog/june-highlights-from-the-world-of-scientific-publishing

## Wikipedia citations in journal articles

EASE journal blog, 22 septembre 2014

This research aimed to identify the motivations for citation to Wikipedia in scientific papers. Also, the number of citation to Wikipedia, location of citation, type of citing papers, subject of citing and cited articles were determined and compared in different subject fields. Results showed that there are 20 motivations for citing Wikipedia and the most frequent of them are providing general information and definition, facts and figures. Citations to Wikipedia often appear in the introduction or introductory sections of papers. Computer sciences, internet and chemistry are the most cited subjects. The use of Wikipedia in articles is increasing both in terms of quantity and diversity

http://www.jscires.org/article.asp?issn=2320-0057;year=2013;volume=2;issue=3;spage=231;epage=238;aulast=Tohidinasab

## Métriques et impact

### 5 Methods to develop your online presence (for researchers)

American Journal Experts (AJE), Promoting your research, juillet 2014

Here are some suggestions for improving your online visibility so that others find the information you want them to see.

#### 1. LinkedIn

* Add a professional-looking photograph of yourself.

* Customize your profile's URL to include your name.
* Be sure to share your publication list, important conference presentations, editorial positions, etc.

## 2. Twitter

* Choose a short user name!

* Look for hashtags used in your field.

* Use URL shorteners like bit.ly to help save space when you are sending links.

## 3. Profiles focused on your research products

* ORCID

* ImpactStory

* Figshare

* Kudos

## 4. Social networking sites for researchers

* ResearchGate

* Academia.edu

## 5. Lab or group websites

http://www.aje.com/en/education/other-resources/articles/5-methods-develop-your-online-presence-researchers

## Time to discard the metric that decides how science is rated

theconversation.com, 11 June 2014

Judging scientists by their ability to publish in the journals with the highest impact factors means that scientists waste valuable time and are encouraged to hype up their work, or worse, only in an effort to secure a space in these prized journals. They also get no credit for sharing data, software and resources, which are vital to progress in science. This is why, since its release a year ago, more than 10,000 individuals across the scholarly community have signed the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), which aims to free science from the obsession with the impact factor. [...] Reform of research assessment is possible right now by anyone or any organisation with a stake in the progress of science. [...] One common feature among funding agencies with newer approaches to research assessment is that applicants are often asked to restrict the evidence that supports their application to a limited number of research contributions. This emphasises quality over quantity. With fewer research papers to consider, there is greater chance that the evaluators can focus on the science, rather than the journal in which it is published. [...] As more and more examples appear of practices that don't rely on impact factors and journal names, scientists will realise that they might not be as trapped by a single metric as they think. Reform will help researchers by enabling them to focus on their research and help society by improving the return on the public investment in science.

http://theconversation.com/time-to-discard-the-metric-that-decides-how-science-is-rated-27733

## New data, new possibilities: exploring the insides of Altmetric.com

Robinson-Garcia, N.; Torres-Salinas, D.; Zahedi, Z.; Costas, R. (2014) *New data, new possibilities: Exploring the insides of Altmetric.com*. *El profesional de la informacion*, 23(4), 359-366

This paper analyzes Altmetric.com, one of the most important altmetric data providers currently used. We have analyzed a set of publications with doi number indexed in the Web of Science during the period 2011-2013 and collected their data with the Altmetric API. 19% of the original set of papers was retrieved from Altmetric.com including some altmetric data. We identified 16 different social media sources from which Altmetric.com retrieves data. However five of them cover 95.5% of the total set. Twitter (87.1%) and Mendeley (64.8%) have the highest coverage. We conclude that Altmetric.com is a transparent, rich and accurate tool for altmetric data. Nevertheless, there are still potential limitations on its exhaustiveness as well as on the selection of social media sources that need further research.

## Transparency promised for vilified impact factor

Nature news, juillet 2014

The most misused metric in science is getting a makeover — although many researchers would like it to disappear altogether. Information firm Thomson Reuters says that it will become more transparent over how it calculates impact factors, an annual ranking of more than 10,900 scientific journals that it published on 29 July, along with the names of 39 journals that it is barring from the list. The firm, which is headquartered in New York, is also revamping its commercial analysis product, InCites, to add metrics based on individual articles, and to allow users to make their own calculations. But critics say that more change is needed.

http://www.nature.com/news/transparency-promised-for-vilified-impact-factor-1.15642

## Visualize impact with the Plum Print from Plum™ Analytics

EBSCO newsroom, juin 2014

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

PLUMX

**Usage**
PDF Views: 1052
HTML Views: 7006

**Captures**
Readers: 34

**Mentions**
Comments: 11

**Social Media**

Tweets: 63
+1s: 2

Likes: 20

Shares: 13

**Citations**
CrossRef: 1

see details

Plum™ Analytics, an EBSCO company, introduces a new way to visualize research impact. The Plum Print will take the data available in Plum Analytics' product PlumX™ and visually illustrate the impact of a
given artifact – an article, presentation, or other
types of research, making it easy to see valuable
information in one place. The Plum Print is
comprised of five circles representing each of the five
categories of metrics that are tracked in PlumX:
Usage, Captures, Mentions, Social Media and
Citations. The size of each circle corresponds to the
number of metrics in that category, allowing users to
quickly visualize the relative number of metrics or
see if a particular category has any metrics. More
detailed information about the metrics in each
category is available simply by moving the mouse
over the Plum Print.

http://www.ebscohost.com/newsroom/stories/visualize-impact-with-the-plum-print-from-plum-analytics

Libre Accès

Petit entretien sur la publication libre accès

Blog du Café des Sciences, 21 juillet 2014

Entretien avec un éditeur scientifique de la revue PLOS ONE pour le magazine *Allez savoir!* de l'Université de Lausanne. L'éditeur explique en quoi consiste son travail, sa motivation, et le coût et l'intérêt de l'open access par rapport au système traditionnel.

http://toutsepassecommesi.cafe-sciences.org/2014/07/21/petit-entretien-sur-la-publication-libre-acces-openaccess/

Risques de l'accès libre pour la pérennité des connaissances

Blog Semantico, 7 juillet 2014

Dans cet article, Richard Padley explique les risques potentiels à long terme du modèle de publication en accès libre. Son principal argument est fondé sur les conséquences probables du passage du modèle de souscription, qui garantissait aux maisons d'édition un revenu régulier et par conséquent la possibilité d'investir pour s'adapter aux mutations technologiques, à un modèle auteur-payeur économiquement instable en période difficile. Ce risque concernerait les maisons d'éditions qui ne prévoient pas dans le coût de l'accès libre une part pour la maintenance et les changements de technologie. Il s'appuie sur des exemples de changements récents comme la musique et les cartes numériques. Une solution pourrait être le modèle Freemium, proposé par Toby Green, chef du service des publications de l'organisation de coopération et de développement économiques (OCDE), qui est confronté au besoin de générer 13 millions d'Euro pour le fonctionnement de son service. Dans le modèle Freemium les articles sont en

accès libre en lecture seule, donc accessibles à un
large public, mais le téléchargement, le partage et
l'accès aux métadonnées est payant. Eric Lichtfouse

http://wwwsemantico.com/2014/07/freemium-and-the-forever-business-payment-models-in-scholarly-publishing/

New predatory publisher copies look and feel of
BioMed Central

Blog Scholarly Open Access, 11/09/2014

BioMed Research is a brand-new open-access
publisher based in India that recently launched with
21 open-access journals. The publisher copies the
look, feel — and even the tagline — of the
established OA publisher BioMed Central.

http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/09/11/new-predatory-publisher-copies-look-and-feel-of-biomed-central/

Evaluation

Hate the peer-review process? Einstein did too

Blog The conversation, UK. 2 juin 2014

The review process was meant to save scientists from
mistakes and public embarrassment. The idea was
that peers help to improve our work, and the review
process of high-status journals can serve as "stamps
of approval" or simply signal of quality.

But sometimes a collegial discussion rather than
formalised peer review can be a better way of
getting the message across. So far the peer-review
process has been largely an item of faith – something
that probably produces better science. However,
there is a growing body of evidence which is
challenging this notion. [...] Some, like Einstein before
them, think that the peer-review system should be
abandoned in favour of a "market of ideas" where
the best research would naturally be identified by
the crowd, hence reducing the cost of the review
process. There are many potential dangers of these
alternatives to peer review, the most obvious being
expanded opportunities for "bad science" to
masquerade as legitimate work. However, given the
immense cost and frustrations associated with the
peer-review process, we think it may be worth
considering alternatives.

http://theconversation.com/hate-the-peer-review-process-einstein-did-too-27405
# Paper rejection due to being "correspondence": what does it mean?

*Academia Stack Exchange, 2 juillet 2014*

**Question:**

My paper was rejected a few hours after submission with the following explanation:

"Regretfully, your manuscript is being Immediate Rejected without review since it is a short correspondence item while we do not publish correspondence."

What does this mean? Is my manuscript too short?

**Answer:** Many journals publish correspondence or short reports that are brief research works, usually with a single finding, straightforward methods, and not much more than that. They are intended for quick, "Hey, we've always wanted to know the value of X, and turns out it's 7" studies - they belong in the literature, and may be useful, but are not a full research paper. They are often also referred to as letters, notes, or by other names. Sometimes they're purely defined by concept, sometimes by word count. [...] Your paper is either too short, or only presents a short, focused result that the journal does not consider a "full" paper. It's hard to know, as they won't exactly lay out the definitions of papers they don't accept, but you may want to look at similar journals to see if there is a field-based consensus for what a sufficiently large finding is.

http://academia stackexchange.com/questions/24265/paper-rejection-due-to-being-correspondence-what-does-it-mean

# With great power comes great responsibility: the importance of rejection, power, and editors in the practice of scientific publishing

Lortie CJ, Allesina S, Aarssen L, et al. With great power comes great responsibility: the importance of rejection, power, and editors in the practice of scientific publishing. PLoS One 2013;8(12):e85382 (doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085382)

Peer review is an important element of scientific communication but deserves quantitative examination. We used data from the handling service Manuscript Central for ten mid-tier ecology and evolution journals to test whether number of external reviews completed improved citation rates for all accepted manuscripts. Contrary to a previous study examining this issue using resubmission data as a proxy for reviews, we show that citation rates of manuscripts do not correlate with the number of individuals that provided reviews. Importantly, externally-reviewed papers do not outperform editor-only reviewed published papers in terms of visibility within a 5-year citation window. These findings suggest that in many instances editors can be all that is needed to review papers (or at least

conduct the critical first review to assess general suitability) if the purpose of peer review is to primarily filter and that journals can consider reducing the number of referees associated with reviewing ecology and evolution papers.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0085382

# Droit d'auteur

## Creative Commons and open access

*EASE Journal Blog, juillet 2014*

The Internet has changed the economics of publication and digital-resource sharing. Copyright law supplies the baseline terms of use for almost all information on the Internet. These terms can be altered if the copyright owner grants a license or permission to do something that would otherwise infringe copyright. Creative Commons licenses are the most widely used of these public licenses for all kinds of copyrighted works except software, for which free and open-source licenses are most common.

http://ese-bookshelf.blogspot.fr/2014/07/b-creative-commons-and-open-access.html

Carroll MW. Creative Commons and the openness of open access. The New England Journal of Medicine 2013;368:789-791 (doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1300040)

# Ethique et fraude

## Co-authors gone bad – how to avoid publishing conflicts

Primack, R. B., et al. (2014). "Editorial: Coauthors gone bad; how to avoid publishing conflict and a proposed agreement for co-author teams." *Biological Conservation* 176(0): 277-280. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2014.06.003

Although working with co-authors is usually rewarding, it can also lead to difficulties. Co-authors may not contribute as much as they promised, or in particularly problematic cases, they may deliberately obstruct the research or publication process. We have encountered examples of conflicts among co-authors at Biological Conservation and have been told about many others. We share some general examples below and then consider how to avoid such conflicts. And finally, based on our experience and readings, we offer a general Co-authors Agreement for use by scientists.
## Credit where credit is due: best practices for authorship attribution

American Journal Experts (AJE), Publishing Process, juin 2014

Collaboration, citations, and publishing ethics are all wrapped up in the concept of authorship, which still doesn't have a widely accepted definition in academic publishing. Part of AJE's Best Practices series, our white paper on authorship discusses ways to manage attribution well, outlining common guidelines from journals that can help you stay on the side of right.

http://www.aje.com/en/education/other-resources/downloadables/credit-where-credit-due-best-practices-authorship

## Cartel de citations : 60 articles retirés

Agence Science-Presse, le 15 juillet 2014

La maison d'édition SAGE Publishers a retiré 60 articles du Journal of Vibration and Control après une enquête révélant un cartel de citations, c'est à dire un ou plusieurs auteurs qui s'auto-citent ou s'auto-évaluent. Pour mémoire les auteurs fraudeurs pratiquent l'autoévaluation en suggérant aux revues, lors de la soumission d'articles, des fausses adresses email avec des noms scientifiques reconnus ; ces adresses étant en réalité celles des auteurs. Le ministre de l'éducation de Taïwan, co-auteur de certains de ces articles, a annoncé sa démission. Eric Lichtfouse

http://www.sciencepresse.qc.ca/actualite/2014/07/15/retrait-darticles-60-dun-coup

## Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals

ICMJE Recommendations, juillet 2014

ICMJE developed these recommendations to review best practice and ethical standards in the conduct and reporting of research and other material published in medical journals, and to help authors, editors, and others involved in peer review and biomedical publishing create and distribute accurate, clear, unbiased medical journal articles. The recommendations may also provide useful insights into the medical editing and publishing process for the media, patients and their families, and general readers.

http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/

## Un guide pour promouvoir une recherche intègre et responsable

Comité d'éthique du CNRS (COMETS), 21 juillet 2014

Ce guide se veut avant tout informatif. Il développe une brève analyse des situations difficiles auxquelles les acteurs de la recherche (chercheurs, enseignants-chercheurs, accompagnants de la recherche) peuvent se trouver confrontés. Il formule aussi des recommandations portant, entre autres, sur les bonnes pratiques à adopter en termes de publications, de traitement des données, d'ouverture des résultats à la communauté scientifique, de communication. Il insiste sur l'impérative obligation d'évitement des conflits d'intérêts

http://www.cnrs.fr/comets/IMG/pdf/guide-promouvoir_une_recherche_inte_gre_et_responsable_8septembre2014-2.pdf

## Not all plagiarism requires a retraction

Nature news, juillet 2014

Papers that plagiarize only text can still contribute to the literature, but any errors or omissions should be prominently corrected, says Praveen Chaddah. The ease with which large chunks of text can be digitally scanned and compared with what has previously been published has produced a new breed of academic watchdog. Plagiarism-detection software has opened up scrutiny of scientific publications to non-experts and text that has been copied and pasted without proper attribution is now a common reason for papers being retracted. Hobby-ists and political opponents have made a cottage industry out of searching the back catalogues of high-profile individuals for evidence of such misdeeds.

Such plagiarism is unethical and it is a form of misconduct, but scientists are not writers. We value the originality of ideas more than of language. There are worse offences than text plagiarism — such as taking credit for someone else's research ideas and lifting their results. These are harder to detect than copy-and-pasted text, so receive less attention. This should change. To help, academic journals could, for instance, change the ways in which they police and deal with such cases.

http://www.nature.com/news/not-all-plagiarism-requires-a-retraction-1.15517
# Processus de publication

## Where to publish ?

Gutknecht C., Where to publish? Development of a recommender system for academic publishing, 2014 Master of Science in Business Information Systems thesis, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland.

This thesis using the method of research design is about creating a journal recommendation system for authors. Existing systems like JANE or whichjournal.com offer recommendations based on similarities of the content. This study invests how more sophisticated factors like openness, price (subscription or article processing charge), speed of publication can be included in the ranking of a recommendation system. The recommendation should also consider the expectations from other stakeholders like libraries or funders.

http://eprints.rclis.org/23523/

## Need help finding a good journal for your next paper? Try these resources

Scholarly Open ACCESS, juillet 2014

First of all, the best way to become familiar with the top journals in your field is to

* Read many articles in your area of study and take note of where the best ones are published

* Consult with senior colleagues in your department

* Consult with an academic librarian

If you still need some ideas, here are [...] free, automated services that might prove helpful:

* Edanz Journal Selector

http://www.edanzediting.com/journalSelector

* Elsevier Journal Finder

http://journalfinder.elsevier.com/

* Journal Article Name Estimator (Jane)

http://www.biosemantics.org/jane/

* JournalGuide

http://www.journalguide.com/

http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/07/01/need-help-finding-a-good-journal-for-your-next-paper-try-these-resources/

## Petit guide de valorisation

Signalé par ISTINFO INRA: Site Aquitaine Science Transfert, juillet 2014

Ce petit guide ainsi est dédié à tous les chercheurs des établissements publics qui veulent porter leurs

résultats de recherche jusqu'aux marchés pour contribuer au développement de produits, de services et savoir-faire innovants. De façon très synthétique, il apporte les premières réponses aux différentes problématiques qui se posent lors d'une démarche de valorisation des résultats de la recherche publique : justifier de son invention (ou création), protéger, promouvoir, maturer et transférer son invention ou création.

http://ast-innovations.com/le-guide-de-la-valorisation/

## Social sciences suffer from severe publication bias

Nature news, août 2014

When an experiment fails to produce an interesting effect, researchers often shelve the data and move on to another problem. But withholding null results skews the literature in a field, and is a particular worry for clinical medicine and the social sciences. Researchers at Stanford University in California have now measured the extent of the problem, finding that most null results in a sample of social-science studies were never published. This publication bias may cause others to waste time repeating the work, or conceal failed attempts to replicate published research. Although already recognized as a problem, "it's previously been hard to prove because unpublished results are hard to find", says Stanford political scientist Neil Malhotra, who led the study.

http://www.nature.com/news/social-sciences-suffer-from-severe-publication-bias-1.15787

## What to do when you are rejected

'Blog The Rest of the Iceberg' (@ECRPublishing), juin 2014

1. First and foremost – CALM DOWN.

2. Accept that the comments and the decision are not personal.

3. Read the comments. Re-read them. Read them again. And when you're finished, go away for a bit and then read them again later.

4. Make sure you understand the comments

5. Remember that reviewer evaluations are honest evaluations.

6. Consider whether it's in your best interest to rewrite your paper.

7. Last, but certainly not least, LEARN from the process.

http://academicjournalpublishing.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/what-to-do-when-you-are-rejected.html
## Publish or perish? The rise of the fractional author...

*Research Trends Issue 38 September 2014 - Dr. Andrew Plume & Dr. Daphne van Weijen*

One common belief is that as a result of the rise of the "publish or perish" culture, and in order to remain successful in academia, each researcher is publishing more and more articles every year. [...] Data suggest that there has been no apparent increase in overall productivity per active author over the last decade. Instead, authors are using their authorship potential more wisely by becoming more collaborative in the way they work, which is driving an apparent inflation in each author's productivity as well as author bylines. Instead, the underlying driver of the volume increase in articles published is simply the introduction of new entrants/authors into the market. That is not surprising, as the total population of researchers globally continues to rise every year, and they become increasingly subject to the principles of "publish or perish": and so the cycle continues.

http://www.researchtrends.com/issue-38-september-2014/publish-or-perish-the-rise-of-the-fractional-author/

## Colloques

### 2014 conference of the European Association of Science Editors

Editage Insights, juillet 2014 et EASE, juillet 2014

Retours sur la dernière conférence de l'EASE à Split, du 13 au 15 juin 2014, intitulée "The complex world of science editing"

Les abstracts sont téléchargeables sur le site de l'EASE (http://www.ease.org.uk/ease-events/major-conferences), ainsi que la présentation du Prof. Sir Tim Hunt "What is science ?"

Parmi les sujets abordés, on peut relever:

* Research into peer review: how could peer-reviewed publications be more efficient?

* Inter/multi/trans-disciplinarity: the challenge for publishing

* Social media and the journal as process not product

* Publication metrics

* Publication ethics

http://www.editage.com/insights/report-of-the-2014-conference-of-the-european-association-of-science-editors

http://www.ease.org.uk/ease-events/major-conferences

## Outils

### PhD On Track

IST INRA, l'observatoire des technologies, juillet 2014

PhD On Track est destiné aux doctorants et a pour objectif de leur apprendre à rechercher, cartographier, traiter et publier l'information scientifique. Ce site a été réalisé par des universités et écoles norvégiennes[...]

http://ist.blogs.inra.fr/technologies/2014/07/30/phd-on-track-unoutil-pour-les-doctorants/

### 20 Must-have iPad apps for students researchers and academics

Educational Technology and Mobile Learning, 2014

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

#### Productivity apps

* Google Drive

* ToDo

* Evernote

* Dropbox

#### Apps for Reading:

* Kindle

* Flipboard

* Feedly

* Instapaper

#### Conduct Library Research

* WolframAlpha

* Pubget

* Instagrok

* EBSCOhost

#### Note taking apps:

* Penultimate

* Awesome Note

* Notability

* Evernote

* Note Taker HD

#### Citation and Bibliography Apps

* EasyBib

* iSource

* My MLA

http://www.educatorstechnology.com/2014/03/20-must-have-ipad-apps-for-student.html

### Cofactor Journal Selector (beta version)

A free tool to help you choose the best open access journal for your paper. You will be able to filter journals by features such as: speed of review or publication, type of peer review, how selective the journal is, article publishing charge. The Cofactor Journal Selector is now in beta testing

http://cofactorscience.com/journal-selector-dev
## DIRT, I need a digital research tool to ...

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

DIRT (Digital Research Tools) est un répertoire d'outils pour les enseignants et les chercheurs.

http://dirtdirectory.org/

## Un outil qui résume automatiquement les articles scientifiques

ADIT- BE Israël numéro 108, 4 juillet 2014

Des chercheurs de l'Université Ben Gourion du Néguev ont créé SUMMY, un outil de synthèse automatique d'articles scientifiques. L'objectif : aider les chercheurs et le grand public à accéder plus rapidement et plus facilement à la connaissance, à une époque où le problème n'est plus le manque de données, mais plutôt l'identification de l'information pertinente.

http://www.bulletins-electroniques.com/actualites/76316.htm

## The Paper Rejection Repository

We recently came across The Paper Rejection Repository on the website of Niko Grigorieff's group at Brandeis University. On this page, he showed from which journals some published papers had previously been rejected, and includes the rejection letters. We invited Niko to share some more details about this project in this guest post...

http://blog.f1000research.com/2013/06/06/the-paper-rejection-repository/

## Services et ressources web 2.0 pour les chercheurs

@jpaccart 12/06/2014

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

Une carte mentale réalisée sur Mindmeister par O. Benkacem

http://www.mindmeister.com/fr/139481058/services-et-resources-web-2-0-pour-les-chercheurs

## The Shape of Science

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

The Shape of Science is a new graphical interface designed to access the bibliometric indicators database of the SClmago Journal & Country Rank portal.

http://www.scimagojr.com/index.php
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

EDITORIAL HUMORS

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

IN THE NEVER-ENDING STRUGGLE TO
INCREASE SCIENCE JOURNAL READERSHIP,
PERHAPS NO ATTEMPT WAS AS INFAMOUS
AS THE 1993 "SWIMSUIT ISSUE"...

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

© 2014, Aries Systems Corporation. Some Rights Reserved.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed_en_US