Volume 7 Special Issue 1 2013
Issues in Publishing and Science

ISBN 978-4-907060-10-7

Guest Editor

Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva

CONTENTS AND ABSTRACTS

Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva (Japan) 100 Questions that You Should be Answering about Science and Science Publishing (pp 1-4)

Full Text [PDF]

ABSTRACT

Prologue: I am a scientist and it is highly likely that we share a few things in common. It is possible that you are reading this paper because either you are: a) also a scientist; b) a competing publisher; c) an unrelated citizen who has been accidentally linked to this paper on your web search. Whatever the reason, the issues facing plant science affect scientists and society overall since we are all linked in this intricate web. Moreover, these issues affect the broader society we live in by virtue of the fact that almost all things, man-made and natural, that surround us, are based on or are linked to science. The world is in a socio-economic and political crisis where freedoms, religion, values, wealth, power and so many social issues are being radically challenged. Those who do not feel the crisis live in a bubble and those who do not understand it are ignorant and oblivious to the ways in which it does and will continue to affect their every day lives to an even greater extent as we move forwards in the next few years. Scientists, as a sub-set of society, are equally affected by and are in no way immune to these crises. Cuts in budgets, an open access system fraught with problems, and science publishing which has become the tug-of-war of publishing powers, science has now become the last frontier for the power struggle on this planet. Scientists are at a cross-road in their decisions that will and can impact science and the society that surrounds us. This paper lists 100 questions that I believe that each and every one of us should be asking.

Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva (Japan) Liberate Science: A New Movement (Consciousness) of the Scientific Indignados (p 5)

Full Text [PDF]

ABSTRACT

Scientia non grata: A new state of consciousness is required in science, and from every current state of consciousness, a new one will be borne to counter it. Not only does this involve the continued positive efforts to challenge the boundaries of knowledge through research-based analyses, to educate the youth through passionate and enlightening messages, or to publish with integrity those results that were borne in the laboratory, but which might see applications within the society or economy. This unparalleled fusion between so many sectors of society and science, with we, the scientists, being the stalwarts of establishing that base of knowledge upon which society and humankind can advance, must advance with caution. Currently, advances in science and society are taking place at a pace that seems to be out-gunning the pace of ethics and morality, and a pro-active approach, through the birth of a new movement, is urgently needed to instill calm and understanding or to invoke chaos such that a true state of ethics may be born. 2013 marks the birth of the movement of the scientific indignados, who are not affiliated with any particular race, creed, culture or religion. The scientific indignados represent a new voice that does not represent the status quo, the elite, the powerful, or the domineering. It represents the voice of all scientists who wish to stand firmly against discrimination, injustice, corruption, lack of ethics, secrecy, silence and abuse in science. These factors are rapidly proliferating, and unless there is a counter movement, the purpose of science, and of our existence as scientists, will become meaningless and redundant. Liberate Science is an Anonymous-style voice of scientists who seek real change in the current system. This introductory text is not an imposition of what it is, nor a denial of what it is not. It simply brings forth a new manifesto, based on passion, and the will to discover truth within the context of solid principles, in the face of serious deficiencies and fraud.

Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva (Japan) Responsibilities and Rights of Authors, Peer Reviewers, Editors and Publishers: A Status Quo Inquiry and Assessment (pp 6-15)

Full Text [PDF]

ABSTRACT

Opinion Paper: Publishing is an intricate process that involves, as the central triad, the authors, the editors, and the publisher, although the importance of the peer reviewer could extent this to a tetrad. Indeed peripheral parties such as librarians, marketing agencies, and data-base companies are linked to the publishing process, post-publication, and will thus not be the focus of this paper. When an author submits a paper to a journal, they are under several ethical and legal responsibilities. Once those responsibilities have been fulfilled, the manuscript then is in the hands of the editor(s), and the baton of responsibility is thus passed on. The editor or in most cases, the editor-in-chief (EiC), has the highest academic responsibility towards the scientific community. This is closely linked to the publisher, which publishes the journal that the EiC represents. Authors also have responsibilities towards the EiC and editor board and towards the publisher, but the opposite is also true. In this paper I wish to examine what it means to be an author, an editor, or an EiC, how this process is vetted and what responsibilities are associated with these positions. I also focus on how attention and scrutiny is often, and increasingly, focused almost exclusively on the author, but almost rarely on the EiC, the editors or the publisher. I further argue that for the publication process to be fair, transparent and effective, there must be stricter rules or guidelines concerning the responsibilities of all three parties in this triad, each of whom has inherent rights, which can, and must be exercised in a non-partisan way. The peer reviewer is often perceived as an external source of quality control, but essentially falls under the responsibility of the editor and publisher, including the choice of peer, the peer’s suitable qualifications and that person’s ability to effectively complete the task.

Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva (Japan), Judit Dobránszki (Hungary), Pham Thanh Van (Japan/Vietnam), William A. Payne (USA) Corresponding Authors: Rules, Responsibilities and Risks (pp 16-20)

Full Text [PDF]

ABSTRACT

Original Research Paper: It is generally understood that the corresponding author (CA) is responsible for all communications related to the submission of a manuscript to a journal. However, it is quite common that the CA be a student or inexperienced scientist, which can lead to often very damaging results arising from the allocation of responsibility to that person. Errors most commonly made by these CAs (despite signed declarations to the publisher or journal) include: submission of a manuscript without knowledge of the co-authors; falsification of data or double submissions; and inclusion of false authors or those who should not be authors. Most of these errors could be eliminated if: 1) There were full, open and transparent communication between the CA and the other co-authors and between the CA and the publisher; 2) The CA selected were a senior member of the research group; 3) All key points during the publishing process were shared with all co-authors, including submission, main revisions and acceptance; and 4) The publisher makes a good faith effort to obtain written permission to publish and print from each CA. The choice of the CA should not lie with the journal or publisher, but the choice should be made smartly in line with guidelines such as those presented in this paper.

Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva (Japan) Predatory Publishing: A Quantitative Assessment, the Predatory Score (pp 21-34)

Full Text [PDF]

ABSTRACT

Research Note: Predatory publishing is a relatively new concept but for which few industry standards and regulations have been implemented, either due to regulatory limitations or due to difficulties in dealing with the political correctness and sensitivity of these issues, particularly among main-stream publishing houses and the wider scientific community. However, with a growing expansion of and reliance on the internet, with a deepening economic global crisis, those who seek to take the road of deceit is increasing, not only to secure power, but to also amalgamate wealth, through whatever means they feel fit. Within this volatile toxic climate of human survival, and the lack of transparency and of independent regulatory watchdogs, online publishing, specifically open access publishing, has taken a nasty turn. This paper does not examine what predatory publishing is, because the root causes are multiple, and complex, but attempts to create some concrete definitions and quantitative measurements that would allow the scientific community to better guide and protect itself from abuse. In this paper, I attempt to quantify those factors that are negative and those that are positive, and have assigned arbitrary values based on a relative weighting system, the Predatory Score (PS). With this first quantitative system – which in itself is in no way perfect – to assess predatory publishing, authors will be able to better assess a publisher before submission, publishers will be able to better assess themselves regarding their own practices (with the objective of lowering their PS and improving their service record, and any person or institute associated with a publisher would be able to assess the academic and structural qualities (weaknesses and strengths) of that publisher. Based on the PS, individuals within the academic community will be better able to – freely and independently – make more value-based decisions regarding publishing. A useful glossary of ecologically-based terms adapted to describe predatory publishing is also provided to assist in the future description of predatory publishers.

Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva (Japan) Snub Publishing: Theory (pp 35-37)

Full Text [PDF]

ABSTRACT

Research Note: A new term in science publishing has been coined: “snub publishing”. This refers to the intentional or unintentional omission of important references in a scientific paper, the erroneous or deliberate manipulation of a name such that it becomes distorted in the literature, or the removal of a name from a manuscript’s author’s list. In this introductory paper, a quantitative table is presented that would allow for the level of snub publishing of a manuscript to be somewhat quantified. This could serve an important function as a tool for members of the scientific community to implement one independent level of quality control, which would allow for the transparent evaluation of a scientist, editor, journal or publisher. As for any system, the use of such a system also has its risks.

Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva (Japan), Chengjiang Ruan, Xiaonan Yu, Songjun Zeng (China) International Collaboration, Scientific Ethics and Science Writing: Focus on China (pp 38-45)

Full Text [PDF]

ABSTRACT

Research Note: China is, without a doubt, the world’s current focus of attention in terms of economic and scientific advances. Center to this advance lies the need to define and understand, with some profound depth of knowledge and practical expertise, the frame-work that is currently in place to provide a support structure for scientists to advance while meeting the challenges of an ever-changing international publishing landscape. It is undeniably becoming increasingly competitive for Chinese scientists to publish in high level international journals, facing serious language- and writing skill-based difficulties when writing scientific manuscripts for submission to international (mostly English) peer-reviewed journals. Thus, without a doubt, English and writing skills are, after the scientific base of an experiment, the most essential skills for success in science publishing for Chinese scientists. This paper explores how international writing collaboration can serve as one simple but effective solution and tool to fortify scientific publishing without ethical hurdles provided that strict rules and values are adhered to. By adhering to a strict set of rules and by understanding the limitations that currently exist in China at the level of scientist, laboratory and institute or Ministry of Education, it will be possible to ensure the competitive advantage that Chinese scientists will require to publish on the global stage, advance their careers and move the advancement of science – specifically that performed in China – forward. To overcome the serious difficulties and problems in publishing their articles in international peer-reviewed journals in English, Chinese scientists often collaborate with other non-Chinese scientists that help to design or conduct experiments, analyze data or improve English expression of their manuscripts. These international writing collaborators are considered, in China, to be valid authors of an article without any ethical hindrances.

Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva (Japan), Budi Winarto (Indonesia) Challenges to Science Development and International Publishing in Indonesia (pp 46-56)

Full Text [PDF]
Appendix 1 [PDF] Appendix 2 [PDF]

ABSTRACT

Research Note: The challenges facing the Indonesian scientific research community are likely to be equal or similar to those being faced by many if not most scientists in developing countries. The structural basis for research and publishing in Indonesia provides some valuable clues as to why the challenges are so large and why, despite the will-power to change or to succeed, such efforts might not lead to positive results. In addition to motivational issues at personal and institutional levels, objectives imposed by the Ministry of Education or by the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (IIS) tend to strongly influence the direction and eventual outcome of research objectives and also influence scientific output in terms of scientific publications in English or Bahasa Indonesia. Strongly implemented rules regarding research and publishing ethics can conflict strongly with ethical guidelines established for authors in international journals or by international publishers. This paper highlights all these issues within the Indonesian socio-cultural context. Only when we are able to understand the frame-work (social and policy) within which scientists are conducting research in Indonesia and in which they are publishing can advice be given and improvements be made.

Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva (Japan), Jean Carlos Cardoso (Brazil), Marcos Daquinta Gradaille (Cuba), Javier E. Sanchéz Velasco (Ecuador), Silvia Ross (Uruguay) International Collaborative Writing: One Solution for Science Writing and Publishing – Focus on Central and South America (pp 57-60)

Full Text [PDF]

ABSTRACT

Opinion Paper: The Central and South American continents do not have any native English speaking countries, and apart from Brazil, where Portuguese is spoken, all other countries have Spanish as their first language. For Central and South American scientists it is extremely difficult to compete with native English-speaking scientists when trying to publish work in top English language-based peer reviewed journals. For them, language- and writing skill-based difficulties are the top two challenges when writing scientific manuscripts for submission to peer-reviewed journals and are, without a doubt, after the scientific core of an experiment, the most essential skills for success in science publishing. This paper explores some perspectives from plant scientists in Central and South America and provides their opinions on how international writing collaboration can serve as one simple but effective solution that could result in scientific publishing success without ethical hurdles provided that strict rules and values are adhered to. Increased competitiveness in a global scientific sphere can be achieved through international writing collaboration as one sub-set of research collaboration that will ensure the competitive advantage that Central and South American scientists will require to publish, advance their careers and move the advancement of science forward.

Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva (Japan), Behnam Kamkar (Iran) International Collaboration, Co-operation and Partnerships in Science Writing in the Islamic Republic of Iran (pp 61-65)

Full Text [PDF]
Appendix [PDF]

ABSTRACT

Opinion Paper: The Islamic Republic of Iran is without a doubt seeing a significant increase in scientific prowess and activity on the global arena. This paper has as its primary objective to highlight the advances made by Iran in science, focusing wherever possible on the plant and agricultural sciences. Such advances are examined as a function of the current rules and structure currently in place at research institutes and universities, and as established by the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology (MSRT). The rationale used in Iran and by Iranian scientists is often completely unknown to, and misunderstood by, non-Iranian scientists, and this paper provides unique and valuable perspectives for non-Iranians to understand the mind-set of an Iranian scientist in trying to achieve success in science, particularly through the medium of publishing. As a subset, we look at how collaborative research and collaborative publishing fit into the scheme of things, and how rewards and several factors are weighed and taken into consideration when recognizing the effort of an Iranian scientist. Although there are obvious socio-political issues that are underlying science in Iran, these are not covered in this paper so as not to distract the reader from the true focus of our message.

Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva (Japan), Alexander S. Lukatkin (Russia) Challenges to Research, Science Writing and Publishing in Russia (pp 66-71)

Full Text [PDF]
Appendix [PDF]

ABSTRACT

Opinion Paper: Scientists in Russia are increasingly faced with challenging situations that limit their competitiveness on the global arena, not least of which are the linguistic barriers. This paper provides some perspectives as to the rationale and challenges that scientists face in Russia when publishing in international journals of repute, or more generally. The work flow that leads up to the publication of a manuscript usually involves a culturally defined sequence of events that make the challenges faced by Russian scientists unique since they are influenced by culture and structural limitations, whether academic or political. We highlight the work by Mordovia State University to implement such collaborative research and publishing initiatives to internationalize its research projects. This paper represents a microcosm of science in Russia.

Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva (Japan), Judit Dobránszki (Hungary) Should the Hardy-Littlewood Axioms of Collaboration be Used for Collaborative Authorship? (pp 72-75)

Full Text [PDF]

ABSTRACT

Original Research Paper: It is difficult to assign authorship in bio-medical science using any fixed rule. Often strong conflicts of interest are related to two main issues: a) the rights of authorship and b) the order and position of co-authorship. The Hardy-Littlewood Rules were established on four core axioms which proposed a freedom of movement and authorship which is incompatible with most current publishing models since such co-authorship would most likely be labeled as invalid or unethical. The logic and fundament is based on an intrinsic level of trust between parties allowing complete freedom of choice. A possible ethical stumbling block may lie with the fourth axiom, which claims that all scientific papers should be published with the names of all partners, even if one or more of them had not contributed anything to the work.

Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva (Japan) The ISSN: Critical Questions that Scientists Should be Asking (pp 76-80)

Full Text [PDF]

ABSTRACT

Research Note: An ISSN (International Standard Serial Number) will most often be associated with an academic journal. In years gone by, the ISSN was observed as one measure of quality of a journal, although the logic behind that rationale was never queried. Other than its actual existence, few scientists know little else about the ISSN. Now, with an explosion of predatory, fraudulent and fake journals, mainly open access, the easy assignment of an ISSN to a journal should be a questionable parameter of quality. Most importantly, if the ISSN Center in France and its global affiliates take credit for being associated with so many academic journals which use an ISSN number on the covers of their journals and on their web-sites, then surely the same ISSN Centers have a share in the responsibility associated with the quality of those journals. This implies that any journal that has been assigned an ISSN and that in any way behaves unethically or fraudulently deserves to have its ISSN number retracted by the ISSN Center. The fact that this policy currently does not exist and that ISSN numbers are being assigned to journals, sometimes in batches of dozens or even hundreds, indicates that there is a serious problem with the policies at the ISSN, at least those related to the ISSN’s responsibilities towards the academic community. This paper lists 67 key questions that the scientific community should be asking about the ISSN and that the ISSN has a responsibility to respond to since these aspects affect all scientists and ultimately one aspect of the integrity of science. Naturally, after this paper has been published, a follow-up paper will be published with the ISSN’s responses to these questions. This paper establishes a simple system to ensure that the process of ISSN assignment and retraction are open and transparent processes.

Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva (Japan) The Thomson Reuters Impact Factor: Critical Questions that Scientists Should be Asking (pp 81-83)

Full Text [PDF]

ABSTRACT

Research Note: The Thomson Reuters (TR) Impact Factor (IF) is most likely the most widely used measure to evaluate the impact of science, although this is erroneously equated with quality. The IF itself is an extremely simple quotient between two values, and the power of the IF lies not so much in the calculation, but on what is used to calculate it. Details of these variables are not publically available. Several other aspects are also not publically available, understandably since the IF is a marketing tool used in generating profits. The biggest error being made by the scientific is an almost blind adherence to the IF. Worse yet, the use of the IF to evaluate scientists’ value, scientific and other, which would lead to increased salaries, positions, research funding and other financial and power-related aspects. Although the latter batch of issues is (hopefully) beyond the decision-making of TR, it is certainly in the interests of TR and its share-holders, to have the IF being used by an increasingly wider audience, including main-stream and open access publishers. This paper does not focus on the deficiencies of the company or the IF. Rather, it aims to establish a set of 49 key questions that the scientific community should be asking TR. Naturally, after this paper has been published, a follow-up paper will be published with TR’s responses to these questions. Any company, institute, society, or other establishment (such as publishers) who take advantage of an intellectual base of scientists to make profit or to fortify their own profile also has to be responsible to that base. This paper establishes a simple system to ensure that the process is open and transparent.

Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva (Japan), Pham Thanh Van (Japan/Vietnam) The Impact of the Impact Factor^®: Survey among Plant Scientists (pp 84-91)

Full Text [PDF]

ABSTRACT

Research Note: The Thomson Reuters marketing tool, the Impact Factor^® (IF), is currently the only global quantitative system of assessing the impact (indirectly the quality) of a journal (therein the manuscript and the authors associated with it), solely as a function of referencing and/or indexing frequency. Despite its simplistic brilliance, as for any other monopolistic system in any sector of society, the IF is now beginning to have profound (negative) effects on how science is being selected, funds are being allocated and this in turn is driving science in an unnatural way, not driven any longer by core scientific values and principles, but rather by the inherent (implicit and explicit) benefits underlying the IF score of a scientific journal. This survey aspired to ascertain the notions that exist among plant scientists (n = 162) regarding the IF and how this system of quality assessment in the bio-medical sciences affects their way of conducting science and the niche in which they work and study. Twelve questions were posed and respondents could respond online with the possibility of also freely adding any additional comments. Except for one question, all other questions stowed an extremely polarized response, with 10/11 questions showing a YES: NO response ratio of ≥ 7:3. Almost all respondents (93%) had published in an IF journal, and 72% supported the IF. Of all respondents, 60% were made to (= forced by implicit or explicit rules and regulations) publish in an IF journal. Just over half of all respondents (51%) are compensated for publishing in an IF journal while a shocking amount (70%) are reprimanded, or suffer some form of negative consequence (by their Department, Institute, Funding Agency or Government) should they not publish in an IF journal. 73% of respondents felt that the IF should not be held in the hands of a media company or publisher (i.e., Thomson Reuters) and 91% felt that they had the right to know how an IF is assigned and calculated and to freely request the IF of any publication from any year, i.e. the IF history of a journal. Even though 85% felt that an alternative system to the IF was required, only 24% knew of such a system, although most of these were local and not global, or had their inherent problems and limitations. Closely related to the IF, most (70%) respondents felt that print versions of journals were still important, 94% felt that publication of a manuscript should be free, while 80% felt that papers should be Open Access. Without a doubt, the IF is here to stay. However, the great displeasure, exhibited by 91% of respondents who felt that an alternative system of quantitative measurement is required, points towards a desperate need for the (plant) scientific community to act towards countering the monopolistic activities of a single company, Thomson Reuters, by providing one or more competitive, alternative systems of assessing and quantifying the quality of science.

Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva (Japan) The Global Science Factor V. 1.1: A New System for Measuring and Quantifying Quality in Science (pp 92-101)

Full Text [PDF]

ABSTRACT

Research Note: There are currently very few measures used globally to measure the impact of science, but most often, the Impact Factor (IF), a Thomson Reuters product, is erroneously equated with quality, extrapolating beyond the confines of quality. Although the IF reflects a strength in its ability to integrate information from a range of sources and data-bases, thus creating one number, a simple ratio of two integers, the truth of the matter is that the IF is now clearly being used and abused by scientists, research institutes and is serving as the de facto role model of quality control to evaluate “quality”. The IF is also increasingly being used commercially to reward scientists through improved positions, salaries, research grants or other direct benefits based heavily, or even exclusively, on the IF. This is dangerous not only because the IF represents a marketing tool owned by a large media corporation with clear vested interests and conflicts of interests, but because the quality of science should not be monetized and judged by a single parameter. If so, it is open to fraud and abuse, as is increasingly currently taking place around the globe. This paper does not examine the merits and demerits of the IF, but does view it as, at minimum, grossly insufficient, and overly praised and thus serves as a spring-board for necessary change. Thus, to provide a simple, free, open access and useful parameter to assess the true impact and standing of a scientist, journal, publisher or university, I have coined a new system, the Global Science Factor, or GSF. Using equations that are open to the scientific public for use as they see fit, but primarily as a performance index that is based on concrete and publically available facts, I am of the opinion that the GSF could prove more useful than the IF because it represents a path of openness and transparency that can be freely verified by any person within the scientific community and does not represent a behind-closed-doors tool for abuse. The GSF does not claim that the IF is redundant, also because it relies on the IF to be calculated. However, it would allow the weighting of the IF to be blunted in the light of other important factors that should be taken into account when trying to assess the quality of a scientist, journal, publisher or university. The GSF is an open system, an open parameter, not meant to derive profit, but meant to serve the scientific community. The GSF, as a new cumulative index, is far more balanced than the IF or the H-Index because it measures the value and quality of a scientist using variables other than publications only.

Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva (Japan), Judit Dobránszki (Hungary) How Not to Publish an Open Access Journal: A Case Study (pp 102-110)

Full Text [PDF]
Appendix 1 [PDF] Appendix 2 [PDF]  Appendix 3 [PDF] Appendix 4 [PDF] Appendix 5 [PDF]

ABSTRACT

Opinion Paper: A manuscript, an original research paper, was submitted to an open access (OA) journal, Romanian Biotechnology Letters, in February, 2012. Upon submission, no manuscript number was assigned. The journal “lost” the manuscript for 6 months, despite at least three e-mail requests to the editor-in-chief. After the authors requested peer comments, the manuscript was automatically accepted in August, 2012, although the acceptance letter also request the payment of a publication fee. Moreover, the publisher requested the authors to set the tables within the proof text. The authors were not informed once the manuscript had been officially published at the end of October, 2012. After the chance discovery of the final PDF of the paginated and published paper online, three out of 5 tables were found to be missing. Following an immediate complaint, the same paper with the same pages was re-published, although the text was squashed, the missing tables were poorly set and even data in one table was missing. The visual aspect of the final paper was unacceptable and different from other manuscripts in the same journal issue. The entire editorial process, from submission to publication, was flawed and did not conform to established industry standards. This paper, a case study, shows, step by step, how easily scientists can become victims of poor editorial mismanagement. Not only does it serve as an example of how a publisher should not to conduct the publishing process and to warn other scientists of the risks involved, whether for this journal, or for others. Consequently, the original paper is fully republished as an appendix. Scientists ultimately have the right to defend their intellectual data and contribution. The misrepresentation and mismanagement of the editorial process by a publisher should be recorded through case studies such as this one.

Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva (Japan) Taxing the Intellectual Base: Should Authors Foot the Publishing Bill? (pp 111-113)

Full Text [PDF]

ABSTRACT

Opinion Paper: An author spends, depending on the research conducted, hours, days, weeks, months or even years collecting data for resolving a hypothesis. The ultimate objective, except for those scientists who wish to patent their results or seek commercial gains by selling patented protocols, is to publish their results. By publishing their results, scientists ultimately hope to reach other scientists who can access their important data and then possibly use that protocol or reference that paper as part of the methodology or discussion in recognition of their efforts. The size of the publisher, abstracting and indexing, as well as traditional print or open access (OA) are all aspects that can influence the visibility of a paper. In most cases, even with top-tier publishers, authors are not charged to publish and publishers make profits from authors further down the line in the processing step such as reprints, subscriptions, or other chargeable paid services. In the platinum OA model, the publisher does not charge the author to publish while in the gold OA model the author must pay to publish the PDF file as OA. In this paper I challenge the basic principle that a scientist be charged to publish, independent of the benefits received based on one logical aspect: that scientist forms the intellectual foundation of the journal and publisher, and thus the publisher’s profits and reputation. Since royalties are rarely paid to authors, in cases where no royalties exist, then I am of the opinion that authors must be allowed to publish for free, without exception.

Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva (Japan) Are International Symposia Becoming Redundant and Elitist? (pp 114-115)

Full Text [PDF]

ABSTRACT

Opinion Paper: In this age of hi-tech, there is no longer a good and valid reason to travel across the globe to attend an international symposium. Excessive costs, waste of precious research funding, and a relatively low benefit: cost ratio should allow those who attend congresses and symposia to reflect and re-think their true reasons for attending such meetings. Surely a face-to-face free live chat about a topic of interest with a peer via Skype or Yahoo Messenger would be the most effective way to resolve any queries related to academic issues. Although online conferencing certainly does not beat the ritzy hotel receptions and glamorous gala dinners, it certainly is a thousand-fold more cost-effective. The true reason, in most cases, why many attendees of a conference travel sometimes thousands of miles to deliver one speech or to put up a single poster is the ability to escape the routine, or the freedom to use laboratory or research funding to do so. The excuse given will almost inevitably be that it is an excellent opportunity to network, but the fact is this is easily possible with an e-mail. The truth of the matter is that the world is now in a state of new awareness and consciousness, and those that lie on either extreme of this social, economic and ethical battle, are in a fierce struggle to implement a new dynamic. I am of the opinion that there is a blind failure in economic responsibilities that is leading to the establishment of a congress elite that uses plastic rationale to justify the waste. One key question is: if you were to pay from your own pocket, would you attend an international meeting?

Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva (Japan) Should an Editor or Peer Reviewer be Openly Acknowledged? (pp 116-117)

Full Text [PDF]

ABSTRACT

Opinion Paper: Professional services cost money and time. There is a silenced understanding in the scientific publishing community that editors and peer reviewers should not be acknowledged and that these services constitute an integral part of the publishing process, but whose services are never publically acknowledged. I challenge this traditional way of thinking and offer a conspiracy theory as to why such a rule exists.

Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva (Japan), Vien Cao (USA) 1,116,629 or One Million, One Hundred and Sixteen Thousand, Six Hundred and Twenty-nine? More Sensible Rules for Abbreviations and Acronyms in the Bio-Medical Sciences (pp 118-121)

Full Text [PDF]

ABSTRACT

Opinion Paper: Authors and editors, science writers and reviewers are often in contact with a horde of literature and manuscripts almost on a daily basis. It is common for peer reviewers and editors – who are clearly not linguists nor, in many cases, native English speakers – to preach to authors – who are often native English-speaking scientists – that they should not start a sentence with an abbreviation or an acronym. The frequency of such a blind criticism or advice – often unscreened or unedited by the publisher – has led us to explore, in this paper, the use of abbreviations and acronyms in the English language with the purpose of creating a clearer set of rules or guidelines that would allow scientists – authors and reviewers/editors alike – as well as publishers to better use abbreviations and acronyms in bio-medical journals. It is also common to see predatory publishers claim the use of strict grammar, but on opening the manuscript PDF files, a wealth of grammatical errors, including in the use of abbreviations and acronyms, further fortifying their predatory nature. The rules that we cover in this opinion piece are not necessarily a grammar review, but provide practical examples of what to do and what not to do, and how to make choices related to abbreviations. We further suggest altering several rules which, in the context of science writing, are non-sensical or non-sensible.

Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva (Japan) Should (Religious) Deities be Acknowledged? (pp 122-123)

Full Text [PDF]

ABSTRACT

Opinion Paper: Global Science Books (GSB) has received – from a total of about 4000 submissions – approximately 15 manuscripts, particularly from scientists in Islamic countries such as Egypt, Iran or Pakistan, that thank Allah in the Acknowledgements. Only on two occasions have Christian Nigerian scientists requested to thank God in the Acknowledgements. No other scientist has requested the acknowledgement of any other religious deity. In all these cases, GSB has politely requested the authors to remove such acknowledgements and to only acknowledge those people or entities who were directly (and tangibly) related with the research work. Herein, I try to explore why GSB has chosen this stance, but also try to explore an understanding of how it could be achieved it without segregating, appear to be segregating, or being anti-this or anti-that. How to accommodate atheists or agnostics? Religious and ethnic, socio-cultural or personal choices can all be respected, even if the publisher does not permit the acknowledgements of important elements of these choices within the acknowledgements of a scientific paper. This opinion piece is not an attack or challenge on any religion. It is a call for heightened consciousness when compiling a manuscript.

Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva (Japan) Wabi-Sabi: A Way for Science (and the World) to Rediscover Itself (pp 124-126)

Full Text [PDF]

ABSTRACT

Opinion Paper: We have entered the age of chaos where technological advances are a fad today and outdated tomorrow, one day news, the next day forgotten. In this state of digital narcissism and ever-competitive market-driven capitalism, fueled by corruption in governance and banking, there is little to disprove that the same trends are taking place in science. At this cross-road we are left with only one alternative: to stop, reflect deeply, and induce radical and revolutionary change. But how to do so in a peaceful way? Under quotidian constraints, to stop is literally impossible, thus this paper deals with one possible way in which we, as scientists, and as a sub-set of the wider society and community within which we are integrated, can seek such change in the form of a change in life-style, and hence state of mind. Wabi-sabi is not a tangible concept that can be quantified or described in set parameters. It is as ephemeral as mist, and as elusive as outer space. Yet, in the folds of its understanding, lies a secret to a peaceful equilibrium with knowledge. To counter the current state of global chaos, inequalities and gross greed that have also come to characterize science and science publishing, wabi-sabi may be one of the last realistic solutions left to restore order and peace.