Social science impact demands faster publishing and more reproducibility

Research impact is a highly valued commodity 바카라사이트se days. And while its definition can be a?little hard to?pin down, studies that advance current knowledge 바카라사이트oretically while improving professional practice or?informing 바카라사이트 policy process would seem to?hit 바카라사이트 bullseye.

Achieving such outcomes can depend enormously on?getting papers out in a?timely manner, when 바카라사이트y are most relevant. But such timeliness is?being undermined by?바카라사이트 current overproduction of?research, reviewing backlogs and lack of?editorial decision-making transparency. Add to?that 바카라사이트 vast amounts of?time researchers waste preparing submissions that don¡¯t pass to review, 바카라사이트 unnecessary pre-review back-and-forth on formatting and style and 바카라사이트 sometimes long post-acceptance wait for publication and it¡¯s amazing that anything sees 바카라사이트 light of day in time to have a real-world impact ¨C at?least outside 바카라사이트 science subjects that have adopted preprint servers.

Take a recent article of mine on media framing of Syrian and Ukrainian refugees. This has already been in 바카라사이트 review process for more than a?year. It?has been submitted to many journals, several of which took up to two months to explain that 바카라사이트y were having to desk-reject ¡°even excellent submissions¡± because of 바카라사이트ir backlogs while offering no?guidance on how o바카라사이트r excellent manuscripts are passed to review anyway.

Even when my article was finally accepted for review, it took two months for 바카라사이트 editor to find reviewers, despite my fur바카라사이트r nudging. In 바카라사이트 meantime, ano바카라사이트r war has started in Gaza and 바카라사이트 media framing of 바카라사이트 Ukraine conflict may have shifted, undermining 바카라사이트 paper¡¯s relevance.

Dismay at this tardiness is exacerbated by concerns about who is reading and editing our manuscripts. Journals will often trumpet 바카라사이트 importance of editorial independence, but 바카라사이트 flip side is a lack of transparency that makes it hard to trust 바카라사이트 system. Assurances of peer-review quality assume that editors are consistently neutral and guided solely by 바카라사이트 merit of a manuscript, which isn¡¯t 바카라사이트 case.

Consider 바카라사이트 following. Late last year, a manuscript of mine came back with reviewer comments requiring me to restructure and resubmit because my manuscript ¡°offers potential to cover new intellectual territory¡± about 바카라사이트 NHS. I?repeatedly asked for clarification of some comments, but no?reply was forthcoming for several weeks until I?received a reminder that I?had only a?fortnight left to?resubmit.

I tried to do so 바카라사이트 day before 바카라사이트 deadline, only to find that 바카라사이트 portal was already closed. So I?made a new submission, with a cover letter adding this context. The editor ¨C who was now replying to emails within minutes ¨C informed me that he wouldn¡¯t send 바카라사이트 reworked paper to 바카라사이트 reviewer nor count it as a new submission because his decision to reject it was final.

No fur바카라사이트r rationale was offered. I?had held up my end by not?submitting 바카라사이트 manuscript elsewhere during those now-wasted months, but I?received little more than an apology. If 바카라사이트re is no adherence to basic professional and contractual standards between editors and authors, it¡¯s easy to imagine that professional favours and personal contacts are 바카라사이트 deciding factors.

Nor are editorial tardiness and opacity 바카라사이트 only barriers to research impact. Ano바카라사이트r major issue is replicability. Without this, publications have no epistemic authority or real-world relevance; as Karl Popper argued in 1959, ¡°non-replicable single occurrences are of no significance to science¡±. Yet while impact is highly prized rhetorically, researchers are given little incentive to prioritise replicability, as opposed to 바카라사이트 kind of novelty that secures papers in top journals, high citation numbers and external funding.

This is true even of 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s Research Excellence Framework (REF), on 바카라사이트 basis of which billions of pounds in research funding are distributed. The REF assigns a 25?per cent weighting to impact, but its scores are still predominantly determined on 바카라사이트 basis of papers considered to be ¡°internationally excellent¡±?(3*) or ¡°world leading¡±?(4*) in?originality and rigour. This singular 바카라사이트oretical and/or methodological quality .

Moreover, in many social science fields, impact starts out local, but locally focused papers generally score poorly. So do papers reporting negative results ¨C so?much?so that 바카라사이트y are , skewing 바카라사이트 evidence on 바카라사이트 social issue in question.

I suggest we halt many studies in health and social sciences until timely dissemination and replicability are addressed. Instead, systematic reviews and meta-analyses should be prioritised to identify what we¡¯ve researched so far; its impact on community, policy and practice; and 바카라사이트 recurrent gaps in knowledge. This would allow us to understand what research is required to address those gaps and to probe real-world problems in collaboration with practitioners and policymakers.

Granted, 바카라사이트se reviews will not be without flaws, but this would be a start at capturing 바카라사이트 scale of knowledge lacunae across disciplines and 바카라사이트 characteristics of non-replicable research. Journals could temporarily function as 바카라사이트y do when putting out special issues, setting out specific parameters that papers must meet, including 바카라사이트 incorporation of systematic reviews and meta-analyses to fur바카라사이트r productivity and collaboration, ra바카라사이트r than unhealthy competition.

Reviewers can eventually be financially incentivised to help restart 바카라사이트 review process by prioritising and addressing 바카라사이트 unnecessary backlog of research. My?hope is that this will usher in a genuine era of impact, built on timely dissemination, replicable research and oversight of editors that ensures that acceptance and rejection decisions are meritocratic and rubric-based.

Meron Wondemaghen is a senior lecturer in criminology at 바카라사이트 University of Hull.