RE: Abridged summary of osi2016-25@googlegroups.com - 30 updates in 8 topics

9 views
Skip to first unread message

Susan Fitzpatrick

unread,
Apr 28, 2017, 10:10:56 AM4/28/17
to osi20...@googlegroups.com

I think it is also a problem that scientists typically are OK with “science” perhaps being reported in ways that are not always best practices if the end result is to support agendas that are popular among scientists (like soda is in general just bad) –

If the studies in the article had gone the other way – drinking soda decreases your chances of getting in grown toenails  ( I am sure a negative correlation with something could be found) – there would be all kinds of righteous indignation (spurious correlations, errors in population sampling, lack of agreement on what constitutes “ingrowness”, and so on).   

 

Susan M. Fitzpatrick, Ph.D.

President, James S. McDonnell Foundation

Visit JSMF forum on academic issues: www.jsmf.org/clothing-the-emperor

SMF blog  www.scientificphilanthropy.com  

 

 

 

From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 12:15 AM
To: Abridged recipients <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Abridged summary of osi20...@googlegroups.com - 30 updates in 8 topics

 

·         attention soda drinkers - 9 Updates

·         Latest on retraction of Chines papers - 13 Updates

·         DORA - 1 Update

·         GitHub for academic research - 3 Updates

·         Latest on retraction of Chines papers - 1 Update

·         about scholcomm - 1 Update

·         FW: [SCHOLCOMM] hybrid oa monographs was RE: OA funds (Re: a meta moment: ...) - 1 Update

·         OSI2017 summary - 1 Update

"Glenn Hampson" <gham...@nationalscience.org>: Apr 27 01:40PM -0700

Sorry---maybe it's just me but I needed to share this funny image with you
(see attached and below)---a screenshot from the side panel of the NYT.
Article 3 says "Diet Sodas Tied to Dementia and ...more

Rick Anderson <rick.a...@utah.edu>: Apr 27 08:46PM

Without disagreeing with anything you just said, Glenn, in fairness to science, I feel the need to point out that people also come to think it’s incompetent when it’s misreported or oversimplified ...more

Angela Cochran <acochr...@gmail.com>: Apr 27 05:19PM -0400

Apparently we are all going to die someday.
 
Angela
 
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org
 
--
Angela Cochran
...more

John W Warren <jwar...@gmu.edu>: Apr 27 09:33PM

Not to be glib, but yes, both Coke and Diet Coke ARE bad, and pretty much anything from that industry. If they cared about people's health in the slightest the food and beverage industry would be much ...more

Jo De <dnn...@gmail.com>: Apr 27 05:35PM -0400

Indeed, and I'd rather die as a scientist who did what they could to clean
up misrepresentations and worse for the benefit of my fellow citizens who
don't know what to think! Joann
...more

Hillary Corbett <h.co...@northeastern.edu>: Apr 27 02:48PM -0700

And this is why the work we're doing in OSI and elsewhere is essential -
being able to click through to the original scholarly article in cases like
this gives newspaper readers the opportunity to ...more

"Glenn Hampson" <gham...@nationalscience.org>: Apr 27 02:57PM -0700

Aw…party pooper. All right---I’ll stick with Gatorade then.
 

 
From: John W Warren [mailto:jwar...@gmu.edu]
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 2:33 PM
To: Angela Cochran
Cc: Glenn Hampson; ...more

Joyce Ogburn <ogbu...@appstate.edu>: Apr 27 06:03PM -0400

I'll stick tea, water and wine. 🍷joyce
 
Sent from my iPad
 
...more

"Barrett, Kim" <kbar...@ucsd.edu>: Apr 28 01:10AM

Gatorade is full of sugar, unfortunately. Water is your best bet.
 
Kim E. Barrett, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor of Medicine
UC San Diego
Editor-in-Chief, The Journal of Physiology
...more

David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us>: Apr 27 08:14AM -0400

Laurie,
 
F1000 actually requires that authors nominate reviewers, ten at a time. I submitted an article awhile back and had to go through three rounds of reviewer submissions before they would post ...more

<Bev.A...@f1000.com>: Apr 27 01:27PM

David, I’m not sure how far back you submitted your paper to us, but we only ask for half that number of referee suggestions, so I’m not sure how you came to submit “ten at a time” We also ...more

David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us>: Apr 27 10:08AM -0400

Sorry Bev. It was several years ago so maybe it was 5 not 10. The point is that we went around and around with F1000 requirements that I keep coming up with new lists of recommended reviewers. ...more

<Bev.A...@f1000.com>: Apr 27 05:39PM

I wouldn’t want to answer for Laurie, but I think the process of having authors suggest reviewers only becomes problematic if the reviewers suggested are not checked to make sure they are ...more

Kim Barrett <kbar...@ucsd.edu>: Apr 27 12:44PM -0500

On my journal we also never exclusively use author-suggested Reviewers. But we are discussing other ways to prevent this type of fraud, since attaching a fake email to a legitimate scholar is ...more

Rick Anderson <rick.a...@utah.edu>: Apr 27 05:46PM

David, I checked out the article you published in F1000<https://f1000research.com/articles/4-886/v1> and found your exchange with the reviewers very interesting. Was Ivan Oransky one of the reviewers ...more

David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us>: Apr 27 02:05PM -0400

Sort of, Rick. F1000 provides a starter list of reviewers, which I used at
first and Ivan was on it. I had never heard of him. He is actually a
journalist, not a scientist.
 
Both reviewers ...more

Laurie Goodman <lau...@gigasciencejournal.com>: Apr 27 02:09PM -0400

Bev,
 
I completely agree with you about having reviewers suggested is overall a
good thing- your caveat and mine being- that they are carefully checked.
The issue is that caveat- and for ...more

Peter Potter <pj...@vt.edu>: Apr 27 02:44PM -0400

For what it’s worth, in the scholarly book publishing world it is routine for acquisitions editors to ask authors to suggest names of reviewers. This doesn’t mean that an editor will necessarily ...more

Angela Cochran <acochr...@gmail.com>: Apr 27 03:11PM -0400

The big publishers have ways of finding these cases of peer review frauds,
albeit after the fact. Or not. We don't actually know how many cases of
peer review fraud are detected during review and ...more

"Glenn Hampson" <gham...@nationalscience.org>: Apr 27 12:43PM -0700

Just to correct the record here because it might be a wee bit awkward for our OSI colleague Dr. Oransky, MD, to do this himself, Ivan is both a journalist and a scientist (in addition to being a ...more

Laurie Goodman <lau...@gigasciencejournal.com>: Apr 27 04:35PM -0400

There have been assessments related to retractions, and reasons thereof.
See, for example, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5168538/
looking at retractions in BMC journals.
...more

Margaret Winker Cook <margare...@gmail.com>: Apr 27 06:01PM -0500

Hi all,
The World Association of Medical Editors has recommendations to avoid
peer reviewer fraud at
http://www.wame.org/about/policy-statements#Best%20Practices%20for%20Peer%20Reviewer%20Selection ...more

"Plutchak, T Scott" <tsc...@uab.edu>: Apr 27 10:08PM

Since DORA came up in a couple of contexts last week it’s worth noting today’s announcement that BioMed Central and SpringerOpen have signed on. ...more

Christopher Erdmann <christoph...@ncsu.edu>: Apr 27 07:56AM -0400

Also, OSF is not the first to be labeled as the GitHub for research:
https://www.fastcompany.com/3016677/can-the-github-for-science-convince-researchers-to-open-source-their-data
 
 
...more

Eric L Olson <eol...@gmu.edu>: Apr 27 05:35PM

Of which we also have an OSI member. Josh (if this email still works), how do you see Authorea
 
fitting into this picture?
 
 
 
Eric
 
 
--
Eric L. Olson
Outreach Coordinator, PressForward ...more

The Winnower <jnich...@thewinnower.com>: Apr 27 04:35PM -0400

Hello everyone!
 
"The Github of Research" is exactly how we see ourselves. In fact, each
article on Authorea is a git repository. In short, we're trying to take
powerful yet hard to navigate ...more

"Barrett, Kim" <kbar...@ucsd.edu>: Apr 27 07:49PM

Thanks for correcting the record, Glenn
 
Kim E. Barrett, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor of Medicine
UC San Diego
Editor-in-Chief, The Journal of Physiology
 
Sent from Surface
...more

"Glenn Hampson" <gham...@nationalscience.org>: Apr 27 10:05AM -0700

Hi Folks,
 

 
Speaking of the scholcomm listserv, I owe you an apology for what happened
Tuesday and Wednesday (again). I won't be posting to that list again. I will
probably still monitor it ...more

"Glenn Hampson" <gham...@nationalscience.org>: Apr 27 08:47AM -0700

Of interest from the scholcomm listserv (in case you aren't on it)
 

 
From: scholcom...@lists.ala.org
[mailto:scholcom...@lists.ala.org] On Behalf Of Toby....@oecd.org ...more

"Susan Fitzpatrick" <su...@jsmf.org>: Apr 27 10:40AM -0500

Might be the best approach – sum up to big solutions.
 

 
Susan M. Fitzpatrick, Ph.D.
 
President, James S. McDonnell Foundation
 
Visit JSMF forum on academic issues: ...more

You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.

 

Glenn Hampson

unread,
Apr 28, 2017, 10:38:38 AM4/28/17
to Susan Fitzpatrick, osi20...@googlegroups.com

Ew, but yes---an interesting angle. Does this argue against scientists getting more politically involved? That is, if scientists aren’t perceived as neutral arbiters of truth but instead as smart folks with an axe to grind, does this hurt science or help? Or are we already there? Sorry---this might be a question for the Science of Science Policy listserv but it does seem apropos to the question of how journal articles are promoted to and received by the public.

 

Glenn Hampson

Executive Director

National Science Communication Institute (nSCI)

Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

 

osi-logo-2016-25-mail

 

2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133

(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org

--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

image001.jpg

Susan Fitzpatrick

unread,
Apr 28, 2017, 11:04:50 AM4/28/17
to Glenn Hampson, osi20...@googlegroups.com

I believe openness could help with the “eggs in ; eggs out” issue  – in the sense that people could easily look at the studies being quoted in the paper --- such access might also make both the scientist and the reporter a bit more careful about breathless claims and reporting tiny changes in the variance as some big deal.     The other issue – I think scientists should contribute information to all kinds of civic discussions.   But once you begin to act more like a lobbyist and cherry-pick data and findings – then I believe you lose your scientific authority and become one more ax-grinder.    There is a lot that needs to be fully explored about the “rightful place of science” and scientists in politics  - But this latter conversation is more approporiate to SciSIp I agree.

image001.jpg

Rick Anderson

unread,
Apr 28, 2017, 11:08:36 AM4/28/17
to Susan Fitzpatrick, Glenn Hampson, osi20...@googlegroups.com

It’s probably also worth noting that being a scientist does not make you less likely to have personal opinions, but being a scientist—especially a famous one—does makes it more likely that people will listen to your personal opinions, regardless of how well-informed they are and whether they have anything to do with areas in which you actually have expertise.

 

I call this the Noam Chomsky Phenomenon.

 

---

Rick Anderson

Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication

Marriott Library, University of Utah

rick.a...@utah.edu

 

From: <osi20...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Susan Fitzpatrick <su...@jsmf.org>
Date: Friday, April 28, 2017 at 9:04 AM
To: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>, "osi20...@googlegroups.com" <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: Abridged summary of osi20...@googlegroups.com - 30 updates in 8 topics

 

I believe openness could help with the “eggs in ; eggs out” issue  – in the sense that people could easily look at the studies being quoted in the paper --- such access might also make both the scientist and the reporter a bit more careful about breathless claims and reporting tiny changes in the variance as some big deal.     The other issue – I think scientists should contribute information to all kinds of civic discussions.   But once you begin to act more like a lobbyist and cherry-pick data and findings – then I believe you lose your scientific authority and become one more ax-grinder.    There is a lot that needs to be fully explored about the “rightful place of science” and scientists in politics  - But this latter conversation is more approporiate to SciSIp I agree.

 

Susan M. Fitzpatrick, Ph.D.

President, James S. McDonnell Foundation

Visit JSMF forum on academic issues: www.jsmf.org/clothing-the-emperor

SMF blog  www.scientificphilanthropy.com  

 

 

 

From: Glenn Hampson [mailto:gham...@nationalscience.org]
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 9:38 AM
To: 'Susan Fitzpatrick' <su...@jsmf.org>; osi20...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Abridged summary of osi20...@googlegroups.com - 30 updates in 8 topics

 

Ew, but yes---an interesting angle. Does this argue against scientists getting more politically involved? That is, if scientists aren’t perceived as neutral arbiters of truth but instead as smart folks with an axe to grind, does this hurt science or help? Or are we already there? Sorry---this might be a question for the Science of Science Policy listserv but it does seem apropos to the question of how journal articles are promoted to and received by the public.

 

Glenn Hampson

Executive Director

National Science Communication Institute (nSCI)

Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

 

si-logo-2016-25-mail

 

2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133

(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org

 

From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Susan Fitzpatrick
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 7:11 AM
To: osi20...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Abridged summary of osi20...@googlegroups.com - 30 updates in 8 topics

 

I think it is also a problem that scientists typically are OK with “science” perhaps being reported in ways that are not always best practices if the end result is to support agendas that are popular among scientists (like soda is in general just bad) –

If the studies in the article had gone the other way – drinking soda decreases your chances of getting in grown toenails  ( I am sure a negative correlation with something could be found) – there would be all kinds of righteous indignation (spurious correlations, errors in population sampling, lack of agreement on what constitutes “ingrowness”, and so on).   

 

Susan M. Fitzpatrick, Ph.D.

President, James S. McDonnell Foundation

Visit JSMF forum on academic issues: www.jsmf.org/clothing-the-emperor

SMF blog  www.scientificphilanthropy.com  

 

 

 

From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 12:15 AM
To: Abridged recipients <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Abridged summary of osi20...@googlegroups.com - 30 updates in 8 topics

 

Hillary Corbett

unread,
Apr 28, 2017, 11:09:52 AM4/28/17
to The Open Scholarship Initiative
For some Friday fun, do check out the Spurious Correlations website if you haven't already (http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations). Cheese-lovers, I'm sorry to say that your consumption correlates to a higher chance of death from becoming entangled in your bedsheets.

Hillary

Joyce Ogburn

unread,
Apr 28, 2017, 11:11:38 AM4/28/17
to Hillary Corbett, The Open Scholarship Initiative
Oh dear, I guess one shouldn't eat nachos just before going to bed. Joyce

Joyce L. Ogburn
Appalachian State University
218 College Street
Boone NC 28608-2026

Lifelong learning requires lifelong access 

--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

Danny Kingsley

unread,
Apr 28, 2017, 11:22:16 AM4/28/17
to osi20...@googlegroups.com

Well the crumbs in the sheets are just annoying if nothing else.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.

Glenn Hampson

unread,
Apr 28, 2017, 12:13:28 PM4/28/17
to Rick Anderson, Susan Fitzpatrick, osi20...@googlegroups.com

Yes---the Noam Chomsky Phenomenon is incredibly important---yet another tangent (thanks Rick). I’m not sure what this means, though---that the public values scientists and the scientific method but not necessarily the science itself (or not as much)? Sorry---this is disappearing quickly down the rabbit hole but maybe following this trail might help out the Culture of Communication team….

 

 

Glenn Hampson

Executive Director

National Science Communication Institute (nSCI)

Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

 

osi-logo-2016-25-mail

 

2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133

(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org

image002.jpg
image003.jpg

Rick Anderson

unread,
Apr 28, 2017, 12:19:29 PM4/28/17
to Glenn Hampson, Susan Fitzpatrick, osi20...@googlegroups.com

I think it means that the public has a tendency to generalize from deep and narrow expertise to broad and general expertise. If someone knows a lot about, say, linguistics, we too often assume that he or she must also be able to speak authoritatively about, say, economics or foreign relations. (We might also call this the “My Cousin the College Professor” phenomenon.)

 

---

Rick Anderson

Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication

Marriott Library, University of Utah

rick.a...@utah.edu

 

From: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
Organization: National Science Communication Institute
Date: Friday, April 28, 2017 at 10:12 AM
To: Rick Anderson <rick.a...@utah.edu>, 'Susan Fitzpatrick' <su...@jsmf.org>, "osi20...@googlegroups.com" <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: Abridged summary of osi20...@googlegroups.com - 30 updates in 8 topics

 

Yes---the Noam Chomsky Phenomenon is incredibly important---yet another tangent (thanks Rick). I’m not sure what this means, though---that the public values scientists and the scientific method but not necessarily the science itself (or not as much)? Sorry---this is disappearing quickly down the rabbit hole but maybe following this trail might help out the Culture of Communication team….

 

 

Glenn Hampson

Executive Director

National Science Communication Institute (nSCI)

Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

 

si-logo-2016-25-mail

i-logo-2016-25-mail

 

2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133

(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org

 

From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Susan Fitzpatrick
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 7:11 AM
To: osi20...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Abridged summary of osi20...@googlegroups.com - 30 updates in 8 topics

 

I think it is also a problem that scientists typically are OK with “science” perhaps being reported in ways that are not always best practices if the end result is to support agendas that are popular among scientists (like soda is in general just bad) –

If the studies in the article had gone the other way – drinking soda decreases your chances of getting in grown toenails  ( I am sure a negative correlation with something could be found) – there would be all kinds of righteous indignation (spurious correlations, errors in population sampling, lack of agreement on what constitutes “ingrowness”, and so on).   

 

Susan M. Fitzpatrick, Ph.D.

President, James S. McDonnell Foundation

Visit JSMF forum on academic issues: www.jsmf.org/clothing-the-emperor

SMF blog  www.scientificphilanthropy.com  

 

 

 

From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 12:15 AM
To: Abridged recipients <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Abridged summary of osi20...@googlegroups.com - 30 updates in 8 topics

 

Susan Fitzpatrick

unread,
Apr 28, 2017, 12:24:28 PM4/28/17
to Rick Anderson, Glenn Hampson, osi20...@googlegroups.com

Yes – I am my family’s expert on nutrition, health issues, exercise, wildlife, cleaning products, and Mars.    And I believe the data (if you take out climate) is that the public highly values both science and scientists.

 

Susan M. Fitzpatrick, Ph.D.

President, James S. McDonnell Foundation

Visit JSMF forum on academic issues: www.jsmf.org/clothing-the-emperor

SMF blog  www.scientificphilanthropy.com  

 

 

 

image001.jpg
image002.jpg

Tsao, Jeffrey Y

unread,
Apr 28, 2017, 2:02:56 PM4/28/17
to Rick Anderson, Susan Fitzpatrick, Glenn Hampson, osi20...@googlegroups.com

The Halo effect, right…? – Jeff Tsao

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages