Publier La Science - Numéro 6

Jeanine Martelli, Eric Lichtfouse, Marjolaine Hamelin, Virginie Lelièvre

► To cite this version:

Jeanine Martelli, Eric Lichtfouse, Marjolaine Hamelin, Virginie Lelièvre. Publier La Science - Numéro 6. INRAE., 12 p, 2014, Guy Richard. hal-03862559

HAL Id: hal-03862559

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-03862559

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 06 / décembre 2014

- Avoid boring and poorly written papers

- Four reasons why the h-index is here to stay

- Google Scholar is filled with junk science
# PUBLIER LA SCIENCE

## Numéro 6, décembre 2014

<table><tr><td>EDITORIAL</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>RESEAUX SOCIAUX</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>REDACTION</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>METRIQUES ET IMPACT</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>LIBRE ACCES</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>EVALUATION</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>DROIT D'AUTEUR</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>ETHIQUE ET FRAUDE</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>PROCESSUS DE PUBLICATION</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>DONNEES DE LA RECHERCHE</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>OUTILS</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>HUMOUR</td><td>12</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.
Otez-moi de votre fichue liste de diffusion !

Il semblait qu'après la manœuvre de John Bohannon démontrant l'acceptation d'un article bidon par plus de 150 revues en accès libre<fnref n="1" /> nous avions atteint les limites des dérives du modèle en accès libre, nouvel eldorado des revues prédatrices<fnref n="2" />. Il n'en est rien ! Un article<fnref n="3" /> dont le titre et l'ensemble du texte ne contiennent que la phrase 'Get me off your f... mailing list' répétée 863 fois a été accepté par l'International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology (IJACT)<fnref n="4" />. Les auteurs David Mazières et Eddie Kohler, professeurs en informatique, avaient initialement rédigé ce texte en 2005 comme une boutade pour protester contre les sollicitations intempestives des organisateurs de conférences, un article 'anti-spam' en quelque sorte. Plus récemment, le chercheur australien Peter Vamplew a envoyé cet article anti-spam à l'IJACT pour faire comprendre à l'éditeur que ses sollicitations étaient mal venues. Quelle ne fût pas sa surprise en apprenant que la revue acceptait l'article ! La revue lui a même fourni un rapport anonyme contenant un avis plutôt succinct : 'Appropriateness to publish in IJACT. Option : excellent'. Peter Vamplew a retiré la publication quand la revue lui a réclamé 150 dollars de frais de publication...

Au delà de l'aspect extraordinaire, quels enseignements pouvons-nous tirer de cette affaire ? Tout d'abord, le nouveau modèle en accès libre, c'est à dire auteur-payeur plutôt que l'ancien modèle lecteur-payeur, est encore loin d'être parfait puisqu'il a favorisé l'émergence de revues prédatrices intéressées essentiellement par l'argent et peu par la science. En outre, malgré un objectif idéologique très louable d'accès universel à la science par l'ensemble des citoyens, on ne peut que constater en pratique que les politiques favorisant l'accès libre émanent des pays riches, c'est à dire des chercheurs qui ont les moyens de se payer le coût de l'accès libre. Ce phénomène accentue sans aucun doute l'inégalité des moyens de recherche entre les différentes nations. En fait, l'accès libre ne serait juste que s'il était universel, immédiat et gratuit ; mais est-ce possible ? Et comment payer les coûts de l'édition ? Ensuite, la recrudescence des comportements déviants en science renforce la défiance du public pour la recherche. Il convient donc à l'instar des comités d'éthique<fnref n="5" /> de renforcer les politiques d'intégrité scientifique afin de prévenir les cas de fraudes. Enfin, la conception d'un article anti-spam montre bien que nous sommes entrés dans une ère de surabondance d'information pour laquelle nous avons sous-évalué les effets secondaires. Le fleuve de mails que nous recevons chaque matin ne va certainement pas se tarir à la faveur du réchauffement global... Fort heureusement les réseaux trient, sélectionnent et personnalisent une information qui est souvent diffusée dans des cercles restreints<fnref n="6" />. Par conséquent la probabilité de recevoir un spam est moindre puisque l'information provient de vos relations.

Merci pour la lecture !

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

@EricLichtfouse

<footnote n="1">¹ Science 2013, 342, 60-65.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_open_accessPublishing</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ http://www.scs.stanford.edu/~dm/home/papers/remove.pdf</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ http://www.ijact.org/, http://www.iflscience.com/technology/journal-accepts-paper-reading-get-me-your-fucking-mailing-list</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ http://www.cnrs.fr/comets/. Fraude : mais que fait la recherche ? Cnrs Le Journal 2014, 278, p. 3, 16-27. Un guide pour promouvoir une recherche intègre et responsable. http://institut.inra.fr/Missions/Promouvoir-ethique-et-deontologie</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ Editorial. Publier La Science n°3, avril 2014. https://listes.inra.fr/sympa/d_read/veillecaps</footnote>
# Réseaux sociaux

## L'usage des réseaux sociaux par les organismes de recherche

Blog Sircome, Observatoire des réseaux sociaux, 12 novembre 2014

Depuis 2012, Sircome réalise une étude annuelle de l'usage des réseaux sociaux par les organismes français de recherche. L'observatoire 2014 se base sur une enquête auprès de 30 organismes pour « une professionnalisation remarquable » : les organismes sont très nombreux à investir différentes plateformes et à se montrer créatifs. Ils investissent massivement Twitter pour toucher les journalistes et les professionnels, Facebook pour entretenir la relation avec le grand public et YouTube pour valoriser leurs scientifiques et humaniser la science

## LES ORGANISMES DE RECHERCHE

### SUR LES RÉSEAUX SOCIAUX DE CONVERSATION

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

http://sircome.fr/Observatoire-2014-de-l-usage-des

## Piirus, nouveau réseau social pour les chercheurs

Piirus est un outil de réseautage pour les chercheurs, libre et gratuit, conçu par L'Université de Warwick (GB). Il est ouvert aux chercheurs de cette université depuis 2011 pour leur permettre d'élargir leurs collaborations. Devant son succès il a été ensuite ouvert aux universités anglaises et se déploie actuellement à l'échelle mondiale. La création d'un compte se fait sur invitation et il est nécessaire de fournir une adresse email académique, ce qui permettrait de garantir des échanges uniquement entre chercheurs. L'objectif de ses fondateurs est d'aider les chercheurs à élargir leur possibilités de collaborations en les mettant en relation (profil à partir de mots-clés) avec des chercheurs de

disciplines diverses et dans le monde entier. Piirus assure ne pas être un concurrent de ResearchGate ou Academia.edu et propose au chercheur de créer des liens avec ces réseaux pour augmenter sa visibilité et mieux construire son identité.

https://www.piirus.com/

# Rédaction

## The false debate between the active and passive voice

Blog The English Edition, 28 novembre 2014

When it comes to using the active and passive voice in scientific writing, people tend to have extremist tendencies. Militant positions on the active and passive voice often arise because few scientific authors and editors understand why each actually exists in the language and how they can be used as tools for focus and emphasis. To flow and make sense, a paragraph should focus on one main idea. This often takes the form "A does B" or "B is done by A". What's the difference? Why write one over the other? Whether "A does B" or "B is done by A" is better depends on whether A or B is your main character.

http://www.theenglishedition.com/wordpress/?p=522

## Tactics for proof-reading

Blog de Pat Thomson, 30 octobre 2014

Proof-reading isn't an easy thing to do – most writers are inclined to see what we thought we'd written, rather than what we actually have. So here's a few tactics that can help:

* Leave the text for a week or so before reading it.

* Print it out in a new font. You've looked at the text in your usual font for long time – changing it might provide you with a new look.

* Read the text aloud.

* Ask someone else to read the paper for errors.

* Use a ruler to guide your reading, either silent or out loud.

* Use the computer to check for obvious grammar and spellos.

* Circle all of the full stops and check each one.

* Check your known common mistakes – keep a list of the things you do incorrectly and use this as a check list

The most important thing of course is not to rush.

http://patthomson.wordpress.com/2014/10/30/tactics-for-proof-reading/
## Avoid boring and poorly written papers

Blog Much Bigger Outside, 2 novembre 2014

There are two common situations in the scientific environment contributing to make papers bad to read. First, there is the rush. We have to produce fast, publish a lot, show work. That's just the recipe for bad writing. Ideally, when we write our manuscript, we should let it rest for a couple of days, then, revise it. The second factor contributing to the bad writing is the collaborative work itself. In the ideal world, one person would be responsible for writing the last version, having enough time and knowledge to care about the literary quality of the text.

When preparing a manuscript:

* Revise, revise, revise. Let the manuscript rest between revisions.

* Revise different sections (including references) *independently* at different times (..)

* Set with your colleagues who will be responsible for the last version. Make clear that this person will have the power to impose his or her own style for sake of consistence of the final text.

* If some part of the text is *obscure* for you, don't let it go just because it probably makes sense.

* Form a *reading group* with your department colleagues. You read their manuscripts, they read yours without any obligation of co-authorship.

* If you're still insecure about the writing quality, hire a *professional proof reading*.

http://mariobarbatti.wordpress.com/2014/11/02/still-about-boring-papers-rushing-through-collaborative-work/

## 5 Key elements of a good cover letter

Edanzediting.com, Writing tips, 4 septembre 2014

If your manuscript doesn't have a cover letter and the ten other articles on the editor's desk do, it is likely that your paper will be looked at last, so you can see their importance in getting your work noticed. Here we look at five key elements of a good cover letter that can help your paper go from the reject pile to the top of the editor's list: Be personal, Tell them what you want to publish, Summarize the highlights, Sell yourself, Don't forget your 'must have' statements [...]

http://www.edanzediting.com/blog/5_key_elements Good_cover_letter#.VH2XwYfJKoY

## Infographie "Writing a research paper?"

Blog Research4Life, 16 octobre 2014

Effective scientific papers are interesting and useful to a broad audience including non-experts in the field.

## SCIENTIFIC WRITING

Some useful tips to help you write better research papers

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

### Title

Keep the title simple and specific to describe the contents... but not too technical so it can be easy to understand. Always try to be concise.

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

### Abstract

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

The abstract is short, but remember not to cram much detail into it as possible. You want to grab the reader's attention with the first statement.

### Introduction

When writing the introduction try pick out the things that are most relevant to your work and explain why. You need to present the background of your work getting straight to the most important issues.

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

### Results and Discussion

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

* ✓ Make your R&D concise but informative.

* ✓ Focus on the really important bits, not the very small details.

* ✓ Remember that discussion of strange results is often as valuable as focusing on the expected findings.

### References

* ✓ Make sure that your reference section is up-to-date by including current literature.

* ✓ Make use of reference management software! It can help a lot with your reference section.

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

### Timing

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

* ✓ Block out times for writing.

* ✓ Consider having regularly scheduled times to write.

* ✓ Choose the times according to when you tend to function best.

### Citing

* ✓ In general, use your own words.

* ✓ When using others' words put the material in quotation marks if it's short. Indent it if it's long.

* ✓ Always cite the source if a fact or idea isn't your own.

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

### Writing

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

* ✓ Generally avoid very long paragraphs and very long sentences.

* ✓ Consider using headings, bullets, italics and boldface (but don't overuse these).

* ✓ Make easy-to-understand graphics.

### Revise!

* ✓ Before submitting your manuscript to a journal make sure you have read the final version several times.

* ✓ You can make good use of feedback from others.

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

http://www.research4life.org/tips-for-writing-a-research-paper/
## Vulgarisation : les recettes de deux journalistes scientifiques

Blog Artefacts Numeriques, 5 octobre 2014

Que font les chercheurs dans leurs labos ? Vous-même doctorant, chercheur, ingénieur, vous aimeriez vous lancer et raconter votre travail mais ne savez pas vraiment par où commencer... Pour répondre à ces interrogations, la journaliste scientifique Cécile Michaut vient de publier le livre «Vulgarisation scientifique, mode d'emploi» aux éditions EDP sciences.

http://www.anthropoblog.fr/2014/10/vulgarisation-les-recettes-de-deux-journalistes-scientifiques/

http://laboutique.edpsciences.fr/produit/9782759811601

## How to set up the correct print resolution for a scientific figure

The somersault 18:24 Blog, 20 septembre 2014

Many research scientists get confused and sometimes even frustrated when it comes to the technical aspects of their figures for publication. In most cases there is an easy fix, sometimes it is problematic, but in all cases it is poor understanding that is causing the problem. There is one rule that will save you all the trouble and that will assure that your figures will always meet the journal's standards: prepare all your figures at the size they will appear in your publication. Size in this rule means physical size, a dimension measured in cm or inch. That is an important distinction with the size in pixels that is used in the digital world.

http://www.somersault1824.com/how-to-set-up-the-correct-print-resolution-for-a-scientific-figure/

## 10 règles simples pour de meilleures illustrations

Eric Lichtfouse

Il suffit d'assister à quelques séminaires scientifiques pour constater la maigre qualité des illustrations. En effet, faire passer un message avec une image est un savoir peu maîtrisé. Un article co-signé par Nicolas Rougier de l'Inria nous livre 10 règles simples pour améliorer les figures. Par exemple une figure doit être conçue différemment selon l'audience, c'est à dire vous-même et vos collègues, ou les lecteurs d'une publication ou le public. Ensuite, une figure n'est pas une simple image, c'est un moyen d'exprimer une idée qui serait trop longue, voire impossible, à expliquer avec du texte. La règle 3 stipule qu'une figure doit être fortement adaptée au média : conférence, poster, article, écran d'ordinateur... En tant qu'éditeur j'aime bien la règle 5 sur les légendes car je dois expliquer systématiquement aux auteurs qu'une illustration est

une entité indépendante et compréhensible sans avoir à lire le texte principal de l'article.

http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003833

## Métriques et impact

### Older papers are increasingly remembered and cited

Science Insider News (American Association for the Advancement of Science), 4 novembre 2014

There's no doubt that scientific papers become obsolete. Although some papers are continually cited and become immortal, the vast majority end up in the dustbin of scientific history. The question is whether the rate of obsolescence has been increasing or decreasing over time. For a study to mark Google Scholar's 10th anniversary celebration, its researchers analyzed scientific papers published between 1990 and 2013. The broadest trend in the Google Scholar data is clear: the fraction of cited papers that are at least 10 years older than the paper citing them has increased steadily, from about 28% in 1990 to 36% in 2013, the team reports today in a paper posted to the arXiv preprint server.

http://news.sciencemag.org/scientific-community/2014/11/older-papers-are-increasingly-remembered-and-cited

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1411.0275.pdf

## Science's top papers: the tools of the trade

Huffington Post - The Blog, 04 novembre 2014

For scientists and scholars toiling at their research and publishing their findings, the most immediate reward from the scientific community is a citation. Many papers are cited perhaps once or twice, and many others not at all. At the opposite end of the spectrum are the blockbusters -- publications that have amassed tens of thousands of citations. The scientific journal Nature, using data from Thomson Reuters, has published an examination of this elite group: science's 100 most-cited papers [...]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-king/sciences-top-papers-the-t_b_6102316.html

http://www.nature.com/news/the-top-100-papers-1.16224

## Four reasons why the h-index is here to stay

Wiley Exchanges, 9 octobre 2014

1. Measuring research performance. It's common knowledge that using h-index to compare research output across different disciplines isn't fair to more
specialized fields. However, some global university ranking systems are beginning to incorporate the h-index into their methodology at the subject level.

2. Grant funding. Studies published in a variety of peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary journals have reported that a higher h-index is correlated with obtaining grant funding. World Neurosurgery even found that h-index is the only bibliometric that is predictive of receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health, the preeminent funding body in the United States.

3. Tenure and promotion decisions. Hirsch himself suggested that certain h-index values could lead to career advancement to associate professor or full professorship at major research universities. While this metric certainly isn't the be-all and end-all in promotion criteria, it does seem to carry some weight in formal evaluation.

4. Self-promotion. Faculty members at major universities on every continent were found to tout their personal h-index rankings alongside other awards and qualifications in their online biographies, LinkedIn profiles, and resumes. Could it be that authors are having a change of heart about the h-index? That may be an overstatement, but they do seem to be admitting (perhaps begrudgingly) that it has become a widely recognized and influential bibliometric in the scientific community. Love it or hate it – it appears the h-index is here to stay.

http://exchanges.wiley.com/blog/2014/10/09/four-reasons-why-the-h-index-is-here-to-stay/

# Libre Accès

## The rise of predatory publishers

EASE Journal blog, 29 octobre 2014

Some unscrupulous publishers are exploiting the open-access (OA) model by corrupting the peer-review process, which is often absent or minimal, and by charging large fees to authors. Such publishers and their journals are referred to as 'predatory'. Their motivation is the procurement of evaluation and publication fees. While many predatory publications would be easily recognised as such, some are highly sophisticated and operate websites that mirror prominent mainstream journals. Even experienced scientists have been duped into joining the editorial boards of bogus journals, or submitting articles. The peer review remains the benchmark of scientific assessment.

http://ese-bookshelf.blogspot.fr/2014/10/b-rise-of-predatory-publishers.html

Bartholomew RE. Science for sale: the rise of predatory journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 2014;107(10):384-385.
doi: 10.1177/0141076814548526)

## 8 ways to identify a questionable open access journal

AJE-American Journal Experts, 13 octobre 2014

1. The journal asks for a submission fee instead of a publication fee or tries to keep the copyright to authors' work

2. The editorial board is very small or "coming soon."

3. A single publisher releases an overwhelmingly large suite of new journals all at one time

4. The journal says an issue will be available at a certain time, but the issue never appears

5. The website is not professional in quality

6. The journal title notes a national or international affiliation that does not match its editorial board or location

7. There are fundamental errors in the titles and abstracts

8. The content of the journal varies from the title and stated scope

Taken together, these diverse indicators should make it easier for both authors and readers to identify credible online open access journals.

http://www.aje.com/en/education/other-resources/articles/8-ways-identify-questionable-open-access-journal

## Google Scholar is filled with junk science

Blog Scholarly Open Access, 4 novembre 2014

Google Scholar is the world's largest and most-used academic search engine, yet it is increasingly becoming polluted with junk science, making it a potentially dangerous database for anyone doing serious research, from students to scientists. Most predatory journals are included in Google Scholar. When junk science is published bearing the imprimatur of science, later scientists may inadvertently use that work as the basis of their work, threatening the integrity of their results.

http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/11/04/google-scholar-is-filled-with-junk-science/

## Two agriculture journals share the same title

Blog Scholarly Open Access, 16 octobre 2014

As the surge of open-access journals continues, we are seeing more cases of journal title duplication. Here's a case in which a one-man, Toronto-based OA outfit essentially copied the title of an established
scholarly journal from a respected British publisher...
Original journal: The Journal of Agricultural Science &
Copycat journal: Journal of Agricultural Science

http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/10/16/two-agriculture-journals-share-the-same-title/

## Publication scientifique : vers l'open access institutionnel ?

Blog Pour la Science.fr - Actualités, 24 octobre 2014

Coûts d'abonnements prohibitifs, accès restreint aux articles, revues « prédateurs » : la publication scientifique est aujourd'hui en crise. Dans un rapport publié vendredi 24 octobre, l'Académie des Sciences prône l'évolution vers un système d'accès public institutionnel. Entretien avec Denis Jérôme, président de la section de Physique de Pour La Science.

http://www.pourlascience.fr/ewb_pages/a/actu-publication-scientifiquea-vers-l-i-open-access-i-institutionnela-33484.php

Les nouveaux enjeux de l'édition scientifique. Rapport de l'Académie des Sciences, octobre 2014.

http://www.academie-sciences.fr/presse/communique/rads_241014.pdf

## Nature promotes read-only sharing by subscribers

Nature news, 2 décembre 2014

All research papers from Nature will be made free to read in a proprietary screen-view format that can be annotated but not copied, printed or downloaded, the journal's publisher Macmillan announced on 2 December. The content-sharing policy, which also applies to 48 other journals in Macmillan's Nature Publishing Group (NPG) division, including Nature Genetics, Nature Medicine and Nature Physics, marks an attempt to let scientists freely read and share articles while preserving NPG's primary source of income — the subscription fees libraries and individuals pay to gain access to articles.

ReadCube, a software platform similar to Apple's iTunes, will be used to host and display read-only versions of the articles' PDFs. If the initiative becomes popular, it may also boost the prospects of the ReadCube platform, in which Macmillan has a majority investment.

Van Noorden, R. Nature News (02 December 2014) | doi:10.1038/nature.2014.16460

http://www.nature.com/news/nature-promotes-read-only-sharing-by-subscribers-1.16460

# Evaluation

## Where did our Peer Review Mojo go?

Blog ScienceOpen.com, 29 septembre 2014

Many researchers agree that for all its faults, Peer Review is still the best mechanism available for the evaluation of research papers. However, there are growing doubts that Pre-Publication Peer Review, single or double blinded, is the best way to get the job done. In this post, I want to explore in more detail what motivates researchers to evaluate the previously submitted work of their peers.
we should ask ourselves:

* Is peer review broken as a system?

* Why do we review?

* What sort of reward would researchers like?

* Given that these publishers can afford to pay, why don't they?

* Are there other ways to provide reviewers with credit?

* Should we continue to Review?

http://blog.scienceopen.com/2014/09/peer-review-mojo/

## Peer review is fraught with problems, and we need a fix

Blog The Conversation, 18 novembre 2014

### Academic peer review

Peer review is a gatekeeper system that aims to ensure that high-quality papers are published in an appropriate specialist journal. Unlike film and music reviews, academic peer review is supposed to be as objective as possible. While the clarity of writing and communication is an important factor, the novelty, consistency and correctness of the content are paramount, and a paper should not be rejected on the grounds that it is boring to read.

### Post-publication review

Post-publication review is a model with some potential. The idea is to get academics to review a paper after it has been published. This will remove the bottleneck that journals currently put up because editors are involved and peer review has to be done prior to publication. But there are limitations. Academics are never short of opinions in their areas of expertise – it goes with the territory. Yet passing comment publicly on other people's research can be risky, and negative feedback could provoke a retaliation. Post-publication review also has the potential for bias via preconceived judgements.

http://theconversation.com/peer-review-is-fraught-with-problems-and-we-need-a-fix-34212
## Rubriq: a peer review service

*EASE Journal Blog, 29 octobre 2014*

The Rubriq peer review service is an author-pays model that facilitates a fast, independent, and standardized double-blinded peer review from three expert academic reviewers, who are paid for their efforts. This service should improve journal selection, supplement editorial reviews, and make peer review more portable between journals. The reviews are returned to the author in 1-2 weeks. Manuscripts are classified and screened for plagiarism using iThenticate and, after review, they are matched to the most appropriate journals. The authors also tested the usefulness of the Rubriq review with editors, working with six publishers

http://ese-bookshelf.blogspot.fr/2014/10/b-rubriq-peer-review-service.html

Stemmle L, Collier K. RUBRIQ: tools, services, and software to improve peer review. Learned Publishing 2013;26(4):265-268. (doi: 10.1087/20130406)

## Publishing: The peer-review scam

*Nature news, 26 novembre 2014*

Most journal editors know how much effort it takes to persuade busy researchers to review a paper. That is why the editor of The Journal of Enzyme Inhibition and Medicinal Chemistry was puzzled by the reviews for manuscripts by one author — Hyung-In Moon, a medicinal-plant researcher then at Dongguk University in Gyeongju, South Korea. The reviews themselves were not remarkable: mostly favourable, with some suggestions about how to improve the papers. What was unusual was how quickly they were completed — often within 24 hours. The turnaround was a little too fast, and Claudiu Supuran, the journal's editor-in-chief, started to become suspicious. In 2012, he confronted Moon, who readily admitted that the reviews had come in so quickly because he had written many of them himself. The deception had not been hard to set up. Supuran's journal and several others published by Informa Healthcare in London invite authors to suggest potential reviewers for their papers. So Moon provided names, sometimes of real scientists and sometimes pseudonyms, often with bogus e-mail addresses that would go directly to him or his colleagues. His confession led to the retraction of 28 papers by several Informa journals, and the resignation of an editor.

Moon's was not an isolated case. In the past 2 years, journals have been forced to retract more than 110 papers in at least 6 instances of peer-review rigging. What all these cases had in common was that researchers exploited vulnerabilities in the publishers' computerized systems to dupe editors

into accepting manuscripts, often by doing their own reviews.

Ferguson et al. (2014) Publishing: The peer-review scam. Nature 515,480–482. doi:10.1038/515480a

http://www.nature.com/news/publishing-the-peer-review-scam-1.16400

## Open access is tiring out peer reviewers

*Nature news, 25 novembre 2014*

Scientists like to complain about peer review. No researcher wants to be told that their work is flawed, unworthy or just plain wrong. But in recent months, I received reviews of my own submitted papers that suggest reviewers simply did not read the manuscript properly.

This is not nitpicking over matters of opinion or interpretation. In one instance, a reviewer complimented the double-blind placebo-controlled nature of our study, and made methodological comments related to that. Yet the study was not placebo controlled. In fact, participants were randomly assigned to three different active treatments. That is a serious mistake and undermines the supposed internal quality control of the peer-review system.

Conversations with colleagues reveal similar concerns about peer-review quality, and suggest that the scale of the problem has increased over the past few years. These are anecdotal reports, but they do raise a serious question: as the number of academic papers and scientific journals published continues to grow, can the peer-review system cope?

Arns, M. (2014). Nature 515, 467. doi:10.1038/515467a

http://www.nature.com/news/open-access-is-tiring-out-peer-reviewers-1.16403

## Droit d'auteur

### Low-quality scholarly publishers don't understand copyright

*Blog Scholarly Open Access, 23 octobre 2014*

I am increasingly seeing contradictory licensing statements on the websites of low-quality, questionable, and predatory publishers. Typically, these publishers include the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY Logo) along with a copyright symbol © accompanied by the statement, "All rights reserved."

These statements are contradictory. You can't have it both ways, because the "all rights reserved"
contradicts the CC license which allows unrestricted
copying and distribution.

http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/10/23/low-quality-scholarly-publishers-dont-understand-copyright/

Ethique et fraude

Retraction challenges

Nature, 1er octobre 2014

A key responsibility of any journal is to correct
erroneous information that it has published, and as
quickly as possible. Easily said! It is straightforward
enough for authors to correct a paper. But if it
becomes clear after publication that the conclusions
are fundamentally flawed, a retraction is appropriate
— and things can then get a lot more challenging.
Even when an institution and a journal both want a
retraction, their interests in doing so may collide...

Retraction challenges. Cleaning up the literature can be
difficult. Nature 514,5(02 October 2014)
doi:10.1038/514005a (Editorial)

http://www.nature.com/news/retraction-challenges-1.16023

How to make more published research true

PLOS Medicine, octobre 2014

* Currently, many published research findings are false or exaggerated, and an estimated 85% of research resources are wasted.

* To make more published research true, practices that have improved credibility and efficiency in specific fields may be transplanted to others which would benefit from them—possibilities include the adoption of large-scale collaborative research; replication culture; registration; sharing; reproducibility practices; better statistical methods; standardization of definitions and analyses; more appropriate (usually more stringent) statistical thresholds; and improvement in study design standards, peer review, reporting and dissemination of research, and training of the scientific workforce.

* Selection of interventions to improve research practices requires rigorous examination and experimental testing whenever feasible.

* Optimal interventions need to understand and harness the motives of various stakeholders who operate in scientific research and who differ on the extent to which they are interested in promoting publishable, fundable, translatable, or profitable results.

* Modifications need to be made in the reward system for science, affecting the exchange rates for currencies (e.g., publications and grants) and purchased academic goods (e.g., promotion and other academic or administrative power) and introducing currencies that are better aligned with translatable and reproducible research.

Ioannidis JPA (2014) How to Make More Published Research True. PLoS Med 11(10): e1001747.

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001747

De l'importance de l'intégrité en recherche

CNRS lejournal.fr, 10 octobre 2014

Michèle Leduc, Présidente du Comité d'éthique du CNRS, publie un billet consacré à l'intégrité en recherche : "Parler d'intégrité quand on évoque le métier de la recherche, c'est presque une tautologie, car rigueur et honnêteté sont indissociables de la méthode scientifique. La « triche » a certes toujours existé, y compris de la part de savants éminents, mais le contexte contraignant de la course mondiale à l'excellence contribue à multiplier les dérives dans la pratique du métier"

https://lejournal.cnrs.fr/billets/de-l'importance-de-l'intégrité-en-recherche

The same paper in different languages

Editage Insights, Publication Ethics, 17 octobre 2014

Is publishing the same paper in different languages duplication?

Duplicate publication is a grey area that not all
authors or even journal editors are very clear about.
However, a number of conditions need to be met for
duplicate publication, even in another language, to
be acceptable:

1. The authors must receive formal approval from the editors of both journals, and the journal editor responsible for the secondary publication must have a copy of the primary published version.

2. There should be an interval of at least one week between publications.

3. The secondary publication should be *clearly intended for a different group of readers*, and should faithfully reflect the data and interpretations discussed in the primary version.

4. In the secondary publication, the title should indicate that the paper has been published before, and a footnote on the title page should provide a reference for the primary publication.

http://www.editage.com/insights/is-publishing-the-same-paper-in-different-languages-duplication
# Processus de publication

## Where to publish ?

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.

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. [Thesis]

http://eprints.rclis.org/23523/1/Gutknecht-2014-Where_toPublish_web.pdf

## Mastering the art of scientific publication

ACS Publications has been actively engaged in disseminating the basics of publication through Publication 101 videos and editorials and, in continuation of this spirit, we have assembled this virtual issue. This issue draws together, in one place, these editorials that summarize the key steps involved in writing an effective paper, journal submission, review processes, and postpublication efforts. The twenty editorials assembled for this virtual issue provide further details on each of these topics:

* The Choice of a Journal

* Composing an Effective Scientific Paper

* The construction of the figures and scheme

* The Importance of the Experimental or Methods Section

* Sailing through the Review Process

Kamat et al. (2014). *Mastering the Art of Scientific Publication-20 Papers for 20/20 Vision About Publishing*. J. Phys. Chem. Lett., 5 (20), pp 3519–3521.
Publication Date (Web): October 16, 2014 (Editorial).
DOI: 10.1021/jz502010v

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jz502010v

# Données de la recherche

## Data citation: a critical role for publishers

Slideshare, 10 novembre 2014

### Contents :

* Overview

* Why is data citation important?

* Publisher guidelines

* Copyediting with data in mind

* Data papers

* Machine readability

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

Brian Hole, Presentation given at SciDataCon 2014, Citing Data to Facilitate Multidisciplinary Research session, New Delhi, November 5 2014.
http://fr.slideshare.net/brianhole/data-citation-a-critical-role-for-publishers

## To share or not to share? That is the (research data) question...

The Scholarly Kitchen, 11 novembre 2014

Earlier this year, in an effort to establish a baseline view of data-sharing practices, attitudes, and motivations globally, across a cross-disciplinary set of researchers, Wiley surveyed around 90,000 recent authors of papers in health, life, physical, and social sciences, and humanities. Unsurprisingly, respondents from different disciplines report different concerns and motivations. For example, respondents from social sciences and humanities as well as the physical sciences would be motivated to share their data in order to increase the visibility and impact of their work. Life scientists, however, would be more motivated to do so if they were guaranteed to get credit, while respondents working in health science, told us that they are most concerned about privacy and ethical issues around data sharing. There is a real opportunity here for the wider scholarly
community – funders, institutions, publishers, societies, and others – to work together to develop data-sharing standards and best practices, as well as to encourage the use of existing repositories and create new ways of sharing data.

http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2014/11/11/to-share-or-not-to-share-that-is-the-research-data-question/

## Outils

### Le moteur de recherche européen QWANT

Qwant, créé par une équipe française, se démarque de Google par quelques particularités : il n'est pas doté de système de traçage et d'enregistrement des cookies, la navigation est anonyme. L'affichage des résultats est proposé sur une seule interface multiplateforme.

https://www.qwant.com/

### SWISSCOWS, un nouveau moteur de recherche qui ne collecte pas vos données personnelles

Observatoire des Technologies, novembre 2014

Netpublic.fr a publié un billet sur un nouveau moteur de recherche Swisscows lancé en Suisse en juin 2014 par Hulbee SA. Ce moteur, comme DuckDuckGo ne collecte aucune donnée personnelle.

Le billet met en avant la recherche d'image "L'internaute a la possibilité d'affiner ses résultats dans la partie supérieure et de recherche selon des critères spécifiques : aspect, taille, couleur, style, visage. Les images sont affichées en miniatures ou vignettes sur la page."

La société Swisscows.ch affiche la garantie sur sécurité des données garantie, l'utilisation de technologies innovantes et la reconnaissance sémantique des informations qui rende la recherche plus intuitive.

http://ist.blogs.inra.fr/technologies/2014/10/30/un-nouveau-moteur-de-recherche-qui-ne-collecte-pas-vos-donnees-personnelles/

### 10 outils de vérification du plagiat en ligne

Observatoire des Technologies, novembre 2014

1. Turnitin

2. Plagiarism Detect

3. Ithenticate

4. Plagium

5. Article Checker

6. Plagiarism Check

7. Duplichecker

8. DocCop

9. Dust Ball

10. Small SEO Tools

http://ist.blogs.inra.fr/technologies/2014/11/25/dix-outils-de-verification-de-plagiat-en-ligne/

### Paperity.org, outil pour les publications librement accessibles

INIST-CNRS, 10 octobre 2014

Un site vient d'être lancé, Paperity, qui se décrit comme le premier agrégateur multidisciplinaire de revues librement accessibles. Tous les articles indexés suivent la voie dorée, dont le modèle hybride, et ont été évalués par les pairs. Paperity donne accès à plus de 160 000 articles, extraits de 2 000 revues.

http://openaccess.inist.fr/?Outil-pour-les-publications

http://paperity.org/

## Humour

@EricLichtfouse

### Why academics really use twitter

#### Why Academics REALLY Use Twitter

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

JASSE CAM' 2014

www.phdcomics.com

Original graph from nature.com/news/online-collaboration-scientists-and-the-social-network-1.15711

http://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1737