Envisioning the scientific paper of the future

Sopinka, Natalie; Coristine, Laura E.; DeRosa, Maria C.; Rochman, Chelsea M.; Owens, Brian; Cooke, Steven J.

doi:10.1139/facets-2019-0012

Cited by 49 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 84 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The scientific paper of today is evolving rapidly (Sopinka et al., 2020), and a largely forgotten element has been rethinking authorship. Fears abound about gratuitous authorships, particularly in medical and health care sciences (Brand, 2012; Flanagin et al., 1998), yet what is equally insidious is failure to include local partners in the interpretation of results, preparation of project outputs or recognition of those individuals who make essential contributions that extend beyond analysing data and putting text on the page.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contemporary authorship guidelines fail to recognize diverse contributions in conservation science research

Cooke

Nguyen

Young

et al. 2021

Ecol Sol and Evidence

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Authorship should acknowledge and reward those deserving of such credit. Moreover, being an author on a paper also means that one assumes ownership of the content.2. Journals are increasingly requiring author roles to be specified at time of submission using schemes such as the contributor roles taxonomy (CRediT) system, which relies on 14 different roles. Yet, there are many other aspects of research that are not adequately captured by the list of roles, particularly in applied environmental disciplines such as conservation science, environmental science and applied ecology.3. The growing recognition that authorship should reflect contributions that extend beyond the usual data collection, analysis and writing provides the ideal backdrop for rethinking contributions in conservation science. Here we propose a more inclusive approach to authorship that recognizes and values diverse contributions and contributors using an expanded list of CRediT roles.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contemporary authorship guidelines fail to recognize diverse contributions in conservation science research

Cooke

Nguyen

Young

et al. 2021

Ecol Sol and Evidence

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…4 Multi-modal representation of research software data "Paper[s] of the future" [43,44] are envisioned as multi-media experiences. However, even without heavy use of video, audio, or interactive figures, research software artifacts require multi-modal data representation and cross-linking capabilities.…”

Section: Box 2: Roles and Stakeholdersmentioning

confidence: 99%

A sustainable infrastructure concept for improved accessibility, reusability, and archival of research software

Koch¹,

Gläser²,

Seeland³

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research software is an integral part of most research today and it is widely accepted that research software artifacts should be accessible and reproducible. However, the sustainable archival of research software artifacts is an ongoing effort. We identify research software artifacts as snapshots of the current state of research and an integral part of a sustainable cycle of software development, research, and publication. We develop requirements and recommendations to improve the archival, access, and reuse of research software artifacts based on installable, configurable, extensible research software, and sustainable public openaccess infrastructure. The described goal is to enable the reuse and exploration of research software beyond published research results, in parallel with reproducibility efforts, and in line with the FAIR principles for data and software. Research software artifacts can be reused in varying scenarios. To this end, we design a multi-modal representation concept supporting multiple reuse scenarios. We identify types of research software artifacts that can be viewed as different modes of the same software-based research result, for example, installation-free configurable browser-based apps to containerized environments, descriptions in journal publications and software documentation, or source code with installation instructions. We discuss how the sustainability and reuse of research software are enhanced or enabled by a suitable archive infrastructure. Finally, at the example of a pilot project at the University of Stuttgart, Germany-a collaborative effort between research software developers and infrastructure providers-we outline practical challenges and experiences.

show abstract

“…The system is not faultless, and various assumed biases have been long debated (Weber et al, 2002;Smith, 2006;Resnik, 2011;Sopinka et al, 2020) but no one has come up with a better system of evaluation that has been widely adopted. The reviewers are the editor's essential helpers, who, collectively, try to make sure that the quality of science published is reliable.…”

Section: Primary and Non-primary Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

29. How to Write a Book Chapter?

Löveï¹

2021

Writing and Publishing Scientific Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

My reader, allow me to greet you with the words of the Latin writers: lectori salutem. You are holding a book that, while it cannot claim to be unique, distils many years of experience, spanning virtually my entire career as a scientist, publishing author, and editor. As a young scientist, eager to publish internationally, the book that first caught my attention in the field of scientific writing was Robert Day's How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper. I have used this book widely in its various editions, and I am glad to record my gratitude to this author for his fine book (now, in the latest editions, with co-author Barbara Gastel).As Gastel and Day (2016) correctly observe, scientific writing is a rather rigidly regulated area of writing. Consequently, any book aiming to provide advice in this area will resemble others. Why, then, is there a need to write about this again and again?My reply to that question is that I found Day's book too closely tailored to the traditions and views of the North American scientific community and, despite the occasional nod to acknowledge alternative traditions in publishing, they did not really aim to enlighten non-native English speakers. This shortcoming still characterises the latest edition (Gastel and Day, 2016). True, there are a lot of similarities, perhaps more than there are differences. However, "non-native" scientists working and writing in a different environment have a different view and, perhaps, would benefit from the approach of a non-native writer, whose own publication record is in mostly non-U.S.-based forums.One area where my advice deviates considerably from Gastel and Day's (2016) is on scientific figures. This is more than a slight difference of opinion-it seems a different philosophy. I confess to adhere to the principles advocated by William Cleveland and Edward Tufte and find much to lament about the current standard of figures, even in the most prominent scientific journals. This field is in dire need of more attentionxi Lectori Salutem submit to, and will be published quickly. Rather, my philosophy is different: I try to instil an attitude (see Chapter 1), so that you see the publication process more in perspective, and I urge you to pay attention to the work others are doing on your manuscript -this consideration will pay off handsomely. I hope you will find this approach helpful.During the last 25+ years, I have gained much from teaching courses on scientific writing to students and scientist with widely different cultural backgrounds, from Hungary to Denmark, and from China to Burkina Faso. I am grateful to the participants of these courses for their enthusiasm, probing questions, and feedback. I also thank many colleagues who inspired me with their discussions, comments and papers, especially my dear friend Dr Ferenc Szentkirályi, who first suggested that I hold a course on scientific writing; to my colleagues at the

show abstract

Envisioning the scientific paper of the future

Cited by 49 publications

References 84 publications

Contemporary authorship guidelines fail to recognize diverse contributions in conservation science research

Contemporary authorship guidelines fail to recognize diverse contributions in conservation science research

A sustainable infrastructure concept for improved accessibility, reusability, and archival of research software

29. How to Write a Book Chapter?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About