"Science journalism has been fragile for many years now: Outlets like National Geographic and Wired have undergone layoffs. Others, like Sapiens, have shuttered. The environmental publication Hakai Magazine shut down last year when its funder, the Tula Foundation, withdrew its support to focus on research efforts, for example (the magazine has since joined forces with bioGraphic). A few years earlier, the U.K.’s Wellcome Trust pulled the plug on its long-form digital science magazine Mosaic."
Here's a question to get warmed up: how are you planning to use Encyclia? Assuming you could follow whatever ORCID record(s) you wanted, which ones are you interested in having in your feed?
Feel free to explain or add other ideas in the replies as well.
1/ I'm doing what I can to track the actions and positions of the new #Trump admin on open and uncensored research. But it's far more than a one-person job. This is a post on what I'm doing — building up to a call to help find ways to #crowdsource the work.
Update, on the #CDC order directing staffers to retract pending journal articles that use now-prohibited terms like #transgender and #immigrant (earlier in this thread) …
"This is not how it works. Medically relevant terminology and inclusive language follow evidence based reporting standards or are matters of individual journal style and policy. They do not follow political orders. Similarly, co-authors cannot simply scrub themselves from articles. Authorship gives credit and accountability for the work, and an article’s list of authors does not ghost contributors. If authors wish to withdraw submissions under review at a journal, this process is feasible should all of their co-authors agree. However, if somebody who merits inclusion in the authorship group of an article requests to be removed, even with the approval of the co-authors, this is a breach of publication ethics."
Update. The #BMJ isn't the only journal pushing back against the #CDC directive that staff scientists should retract pending publications that use Trump-banned words. (Earlier in this thread.)
From publisher Georges Benjamin: "We at the American Journal of Public Health have no interest in following the president's prohibitions on language. We will publish things under our guidelines, under our ethical principles." Benjamin acknowledged that the journal may now get fewer submissions from government scientists.
AJPH is published by the American Public Health Association (#APHA).
"Trump administration political appointees have taken steps in recent weeks to exert unprecedented influence over the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's flagship medical research publication, the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, multiple federal health officials tell CBS News. The interference included dictating what to cover and withholding studies on the growing bird flu outbreak."
PS: Just curious. How do Trump officials decide that covering bird flu is bad for their agenda?
"Some authors of scientific works in process have had to remove their names from publications for these publications to proceed; others have chosen to pause or withdraw their publications. While some of these actions are directly related to the executive order to #HHS employees to cease communications, many have been undertaken preemptively by authors who are not subject to the order but are presumably fearful of the challenges of communicating complex findings in this current environment. Some authors are engaging in anticipatory compliance by scrubbing from their manuscripts words they fear may be deemed, in the moment, politically unacceptable…We remain steadfast in our guidance to authors and readers across the JAMA Network journals and endorse and adhere to the standards set by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors [#ICMJE]…We will act flexibly, where appropriate, to ensure that censoring efforts will not silence the integrity of the scientific process or clear communication of scientific information important for health."
"If authors request removal or addition of an author after manuscript submission or publication, journal editors should seek an explanation and signed statement of agreement for the requested change from all listed authors including the author to be removed or added…Corrections are warranted for errors of fact that should have been recognized at the time of publication. Matters of debate and evolving science and methods are not errors. Retraction of published work is generally reserved for errors serious enough to invalidate results and conclusions and/or when there is scientific misconduct.."
"The news that the #Trump administration has ordered scientists at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to withdraw or retract articles containing terms such as “gender,” “transgender,” “LGBT,” or “transsexual” is as shocking as it is dangerous…Such censorship is not only an assault on scientific integrity but also a harbinger of the creeping authoritarianism that Europe has seen before, one that we must resist with all the force of history…First, we will not retract published articles due to political pressure. Retractions are reserved for fraud, major errors, or ethical breaches, not for the mere use of words that a government disapproves of. Second, we will continue to publish research that includes terms related to gender, sexuality, and reproductive health. Third, we will defend the rights of researchers to publish without fear of political persecution. Fourth, we will stand in solidarity with colleagues facing censorship. Suppression of knowledge anywhere is a threat to knowledge everywhere."
"The challenges stemming from a shifting U.S. political landscape, which threaten academic freedom, #DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility) initiatives, the scholarly record, and federal research funding, are affecting the Society for Scholarly Publishing (#SSP) community in multiple ways: mentally, emotionally, physically, and financially…Since we were established in 1978, SSP has intentionally demonstrated an unwavering commitment to building a diverse and inclusive community. We actively infuse our work with equitable values, including providing leadership as a founding member of the Coalition for Diversity and Inclusion in Scholarly Publishing (#C4DISC)."
"The Lancet Group will be making no changes to our editorial policies regarding withdrawal, authorship change, inclusive language, or retraction. Ahead of publication, the withdrawal of submitted papers and authorship changes will only generally be considered if the written agreement of all authors is received. The Lancet Group will continue to recommend the use of inclusive language, accepting authors’ ultimate choice of terminology when it is scientifically accurate and respectful, and will continue to encourage authors to follow the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) reporting guidelines. Published papers will only be corrected or retracted when they contain factual errors or if scientific misconduct has taken place. These policies are in line with recently issued guidance from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors [#ICMJE]."
Anyone have a convenient solution for keeping your author agreements (aka copyright transfer, rights transfer) on file, so that it's easy to check the terms about reusing figures or translating or self-archiving?
Faculty differ on "circumventing publisher #paywalls…[&] in their conceptions of…#publishers as good-faith partners in the knowledge enterprise…Some…support #boycotting all commercial publishers; some understand…publishers to be integral to the dissemination of their work… Many acknowledge…tensions in…an exploitative and fraught relationship."
How are #altmetrics services adjusting to the decline of #Twitter, especially #AcademicTwitter? Are they giving Twitter mentions less weight? Are they tracking mentions in other social-media platforms? If so, which platforms? Where do they think academics are going? Do they have good data?