Misreporting of animal research, academia's role in policy making, the diverse roles researchers play, and more! (Good reads, April 2019)

Here we are at the end of another month, and as usual, this month was full of interesting conversations in the academic and scholarly publishing world. Some of these include how author-nominated peer reviewers influence grant applications, how a joke on Twitter started a serious discussion on scientific reporting, and the ways in which researchers can make themselves heard in policy making. Have you been too busy to catch up with all of this? Then you needn’t worry because we have curated some of the most thought provoking debates and discussions that you may have missed. Read through our top picks for this month and fill your appetite for interesting news and goings-on in the scholarly publishing world. Happy reading!

1. Is it “just in mice?” Mice are central to biomedical research as they are ideal in various tests and experiments. However, just because a treatment worked well in mice doesn’t mean it will have the same effect on humans too. Often we come across news headlines that read “Scientists have found the cure for diabetes….” or “Exercising reduces obesity …” and we may think finally there’s a cure! But wait, did the article miss informing you that the supposed finding was observed “in mice?” An anomaly in scientific journalism that has gone unreported for long is now at the center of scientific conversations. Through the Twitter handle @justsaysinmice, James Heathers, a methodology and data scientist at Northeastern University in Boston, is creating awareness about this by sharing news articles and press releases that report findings of biomedical research but fail to mention (in the headline and sometimes even in the entire article) that the experiments were conducted in mice. The sensational headlines imply that the said results would be effective in humans, which can be dangerously misleading as unsuspecting readers may follow unverified advice, exposing themselves to potential health risks. The Twitter account Heathers initially started in jest is gaining much traction on the platform and community members are supporting the need to report scientific findings responsibly. In this interview, Heathers highlights why it is important to signify the difference between human and animal study findings.

2. How preparedness can make networking easy even for introverts: Networking is immensely important in academia, but it can be overwhelming for some researchers. In this article, Ruth Gotian shares some tips for scientists who struggle to develop a network in their community. Conferences and events can be great sources of networking with potential collaborators, employers, and funders, she says. Some of her top guidelines for introverts include introducing oneself in an event to the core group and exchanging business cards with the people who might want to get in touch with you. According to Gotian, reaching a venue early or coming in with a colleague or friend can make one feel confident. Conferences, however, are not the only means to socialize; researchers can also make connections through social media. Gotian suggests networking outside formal events as an alternative to those who find formal networking exhausting. Moreover, being well prepared can eliminate awkward moments and undue stress, she adds.

3. How author-nominated peer reviewers influence evaluation scores of grant applications: Grant applicants are more likely to receive a favorable score from peer reviewers that they suggest, reveals an analysis of Swiss funding applications. The 2016 study examined 38,000 reviews from 13,000 grant applications submitted to the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF). The chances of reviewers giving better evaluation score when nominated by the applicants were higher compared to the score by referees chosen by the funding agency. Interestingly, the findings of this study coincide with those of similar studies conducted on manuscript peer review: author-nominated peer reviewers rate manuscripts more favorably as compared to those chosen by journal editors. The findings have sparked discussions about the presence of bias. Meanwhile, there is a call for a new grant system where the focus is shifted “from funding projects to funding people” wherein researchers would allocate a part of their guaranteed funding to other researchers of their choice.

4. The diverse roles a researcher plays: Most people imagine researchers only as lab coat-wearing people who are completely engrossed in their lab work, don’t they? Christiana Cook, in this article, clears this misconception and reveals the various hats researchers don as they go about their daily work. She points out that a researcher’s role is not restricted to just working in the laboratory. From a business person to secure and manage funding, to a writer to communicate their research effectively, researchers embrace many roles throughout their research journey. Researchers often have to get into the shoes of a performer when they go out to present their research while at other times they are perfectionists who strive to present error-free results. She says that, “I’ve discovered that many roles fall under the job description of a ‘research scientist’” and mentions how important each of these roles is for a successful academic career.

5. Why universities “must operate like think tanks”: It is important for academics and policymakers to interact for a country to progress. Iain Mansfield, governor for Bath Spa University and a former senior civil servant at the Department for Education, has called on universities to take cue from think tanks and present research in a manner that politicians and policy makers understand. As reported in this article, Mansfield was one of the panelists at an event organized by the Higher Education Policy Institute, where experts urged educators to bridge the gap between academia and UK policy making. Diana Beech, the policy adviser to UK’s universities minister Chris Skidmore, noted that researchers who transition from academia to policy making are often met with challenges. She adds that “with academia on the one hand and policy on the other…does a disservice to what policymaking is.” There is unanimous agreement among UK academics that researchers should make their findings easy to engage with and to make them relevant and visible in the policy making sphere.

Well, we hope you enjoyed our top picks for this month. If you have something you’d like to share, please do so in the comments section below. Do browse through our previous Scholarly Communications Good Reads collections where we regularly feature more such interesting discussions from the scholarly publishing world. 

And if you’d like to stay tuned to important happenings in the journal publishing industry, visit our Industry News section.