Vartan Kazezian

The scholarly publishing system is adapting to many changes, including open access and open data mandates, artificial intelligence, and other new technologies. Members of the research and publishing communities are working to establish a more equitable, fair, and rigorous system that serves researchers' evolving needs. Early career researchers (ECRs) are drivers of change, and publishers may wonder why and how they should involve ECRs in shaping the future of scholarly publishing. We held a virtual unconference to explore this issue with publishers and ECRs who were working to improve publishing. Some participants sought to improve peer reviewer or editor performance, whereas others sought to improve the publishing system itself through iterative or transformative change. Strategies for collaborating with ECRs to shape the future of scholarly publishing included peer review programmes, editorial programmes, ECR‐led journals, ECR boards and committee representatives, and other ECR‐initiated activities. ECRs particularly wanted to see three things improved: (1) Sharing research outputs other than publications, (2) addressing technological limitations to create systems that meet the research community's needs and facilitate knowledge advancement, and (3) fostering diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility. We offer tips for publishers on how to collaborate with ECRs to enhance scholarly publishing, appeal to and learn from younger researchers, and better meet researchers' needs.

The scholarly publishing system is adapting to many changes including open access and open data mandates, and new technologies, including artificial intelligence. Members of the research and publishing communities are working to establish a more equitable, fair, and rigorous system that serves researchers’ evolving needs. Early career researchers (ECRs) are drivers of change, and publishers may wonder why and how they should involve ECRs in shaping the future of scholarly publishing. We held a virtual unconference to explore this issue with publishers and ECRs who were working to improve publishing. Some participants sought to improve peer reviewer or editor performance, whereas others sought to improve or reform the publishing system itself. Strategies for achieving these goals included peer review programs, editorial programs, ECR-led journals, ECR boards and committee representatives, and other ECR-initiated activities. ECRs particularly wanted to see three things improved: 1) Sharing research outputs other than publications, 2) Addressing technological limitations to create systems that meet the research community’s needs and facilitate knowledge advancement, and 3) Fostering diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility. We offer tips for publishers on how to collaborate with ECRs to enhance scholarly publishing, appeal to and learn from younger researchers, and better meet researchers’ needs.

Methods sections are often missing critical details needed to reproduce an experiment. Methodological shortcut citations, in which authors cite previous papers instead of describing the method in detail, may contribute to this problem. This meta-research study used three approaches to systematically examine the use of shortcut citations in neuroscience, biology and psychiatry. First, we examined papers to determine why authors use citations in the methods section and to assess how often shortcut citations were used. Common reasons for using citations in the methods section included explaining how something was done by citing a previous resource that used the method (methodological shortcut citation), giving credit or specifying what was used (who or what citation), and providing context or a justification (why citation). Next, we reviewed 15 papers to determine what can happen when readers follow shortcut citations to find methodological details. While shortcut citations can be used effectively, problems encountered included difficulty identifying or accessing the cited materials, missing or insufficient descriptions of the cited method, and chains of shortcut citations. Third, we examined journal policies. Fewer than one quarter of journals had policies describing how authors should report methods that have been described previously or asking authors to explain modifications of previously described methods. We propose that methodological shortcut citations should meet three criteria; cited resources should describe a method very similar to the authors’ method, provide enough detail to allow others to implement the method, and be open access. We outline actions that authors and journals can take to use shortcut citations responsibly, while fostering a culture of open and reproducible methods reporting.

Recent work has raised awareness about the need to replace bar graphs of continuous data with informative graphs showing the data distribution. The impact of these efforts is not known. The present observational meta-research study examined how often scientists in different fields use various graph types, and assessed whether visualization practices have changed between 2010 and 2020. We developed and validated an automated screening tool, designed to identify bar graphs of counts or proportions, bar graphs of continuous data, bar graphs with dot plots, dot plots, box plots, violin plots, histograms, pie charts, and flow charts. Papers from 23 fields (approximately 1000 papers/field per year) were randomly selected from PubMed Central and screened (n=227998). F1 scores for different graphs ranged between 0.83 and 0.95 in the internal validation set. While the tool also performed well in external validation sets, F1 scores were lower for uncommon graphs. Bar graphs are more often used incorrectly to display continuous data than they are used correctly to display counts or proportions. The proportion of papers that use bar graphs of continuous data varies markedly across fields (range in 2020: 4–58%), with high rates in biochemistry and cell biology, complementary and alternative medicine, physiology, genetics, oncology and carcinogenesis, pharmacology, microbiology and immunology. Visualization practices have improved in some fields in recent years. Fewer than 25% of papers use flow charts, which provide information about attrition and the risk of bias. The present study highlights the need for continued interventions to improve visualization and identifies fields that would benefit most.

Western blotting is a standard laboratory method used to detect proteins and assess their expression levels. Unfortunately, poor western blot image display practices and a lack of detailed methods reporting can limit a reader’s ability to evaluate or reproduce western blot results. While several groups have studied the prevalence of image manipulation or provided recommendations for improving western blotting, data on the prevalence of common publication practices are scarce. We systematically examined 551 articles published in the top 25% of journals in neurosciences (n=151) and cell biology (n=400) that contained western blot images, focusing on practices that may omit important information. Our data show that most published western blots are cropped and blot source data are not made available to readers in the supplement. Publishing blots with visible molecular weight markers is rare, and many blots additionally lack molecular weight labels. Western blot methods sections often lack information on the amount of protein loaded on the gel, blocking steps and antibody labeling protocol. Important antibody identifiers like source, catalog number or RRID were omitted frequently for primary antibodies, and regularly for secondary antibodies. We present detailed descriptions and visual examples to help scientists, peer reviewers and editors to publish more informative western blot figures and methods. Additional resources include a toolbox to help scientists produce more reproducible western blot data, teaching slides in English and Spanish and an antibody reporting template.

Recent work has raised awareness about the need to replace bar graphs of continuous data with informative graphs showing the data distribution. The impact of these efforts is not known. This observational meta-research study examined how often scientists in different fields use various graph types, and assessed whether visualization practices have changed between 2010 and 2020. We developed and validated an automated screening tool, designed to identify bar graphs of counts or proportions, bar graphs of continuous data, bar graphs with dot plots, dot plots, box plots, violin plots, histograms, pie charts, and flow charts. Papers from 23 fields (approximately 1,000 papers/field/year) were randomly selected from PubMed Central and screened (n=227,998). F1 scores for different graphs ranged between 0.83 and 0.95 in the internal validation set. While the tool also performed well in external validation sets, F1 scores were lower for uncommon graphs. Bar graphs are more often used incorrectly to display continuous data than they are used correctly to display counts or proportions. The proportion of papers that use bar graphs of continuous data varies markedly across fields (range in 2020: 4%-58%), with high rates in biochemistry and cell biology, complementary and alternative medicine, physiology, genetics, oncology and carcinogenesis, pharmacology, microbiology and immunology. Visualization practices have improved in some fields in recent years. Fewer than 25% of papers use flow charts, which provide information about attrition and the risk of bias. This study highlights the need for continued interventions to improve visualization and identifies fields that would benefit most.