Showing posts with label european science editing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label european science editing. Show all posts

Sunday, April 10, 2016

A: ESE Author Q&A: Professor Rajshekhar Bipeta



For the second instalment of our ESE Authors interview series, we spoke to psychiatrist, Professor Rajshekhar Bipeta of Gandhi Medical College, Musheerabad, India.

Professor Bipeta is a consultant psychiatrist, at a private practice in Hyderabad since 2002. He is Associate Editor for the Indian Journal of PsychologicalMedicine, and sits on the Editorial Boards for Telangana Journal of Psychiatry and Academic Psychiatry. He has also just stepped down after five years of serving as Editor-in-Chief for the biomedical publication Andhra Pradesh Journal of Psychological Medicine.and is now a senior Advisor to the journal.







He has extensive experience of the editorial process, which makes him well qualified to produce the original article published in European Science Editing 41(3): Medical Editing in India. The paper includes reference to Prof. Bipeta’s experience, case studies, guidelines resources and recommendations.

The article is now free to access from the EASE website. Download it here.

EASE:  Please introduce our readers to your ESE article.

Rajshekhar Bipeta:  I discussed the current status of medical editing in India. Though, we have a huge patient pool and our researchers have good calibre, this is not being properly documented. There is a lack of local databases such as PubMED, Scopus, etc. IndMED is a prestigious ICMR database of medical journals. However, many internationally acclaimed PubMED journals are not indexed with IndMED. I also gave few suggestions to the Indian editors that they can utilize to improve the global presence of Indian journals. The authors need to be more aware of publication ethics which I highlighted through case vignettes.

EASE: What is your main area of research?

RB:  Psychiatry. My areas of special interest are: Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder; Neuro-psychiatric rating scales and assessment schedules; Psychiatric and bio-psycho-social aspects of HIV/AIDS; Insight in psychiatric disorders; Suicidality, impulsivity, and aggression 

EASE:  How long have you been involved in this area?

RB:  For the past 16 years, especially since 2002.

EASE: What are some of the innovative aspects you could tell us about your research?

RB:  Obsessive-compulsive disorder is my most important area of research. This is a fascinating illness, with varied presentation. I am interested in researching hitherto unexplored aspects of this illness.

EASE: What do you feel are your most significant research achievements?

RB:  As an editor of a small, local journal, under the guidance of the editorial board and the society, we could enhance the standards of our journal to a high level. We could put research ethics in place. I consider this as my most significant research achievement. I was fortunate to be guided actively by my society.

EASE: What do you consider to be your best paper or work, and why?

RB:  I consider this my best paper:
Bipeta R, Yerramilli SSRR, Karredla AR, Srinath G.Diagnostic stability of internet addiction in obsessive‑compulsive disorder:data from a naturalistic one‑year treatment study. Innov Clin Neurosci 2015;12(3-4):14–23.

Most of the research in the field of so-called ‘internet addiction’ has been done by non-medical people, especially non-mental health professionals. I consider this the fallacy of internet addiction research. To say that an entity is a disorder, the research should be done by experts and professionals in that field. I encourage readers to go through my editorial:
BipetaR. Mental health research is not just administering rating scales. AP J PsycholMed 2013; 14(2): 65-8.         

In my opinion, there is nothing like ‘internet addiction disorder’; this is a hype.

EASE: Do you have any interesting work or papers that maybe completed in the next year or so that you are able to speak about?

RB:  I am doing some original work in the field of OCD, social anxiety disorder, stigma in psychiatric illness, etc. I hope to see these in print soon.

EASE: Are you a member of EASE?

RB:  Yes, I am a sponsored member of EASE. I am fortunate to be sponsored thrice by Dr Joan Marsh, the former President of EASE. It is very difficult for researchers from developing countries like India to seek paid membership of such organizations. I am extremely thankful to Dr Marsh.     

EASE:  How long have you known about, or been involved with the Association?

RB:  Around three years.

EASE:  Have you been involved in any EASE-related projects in the past? If so, could you tell us about them?

RB:  Yes. I volunteer for the
(EASE) certification and training group

EASE:  Will you be attending the conference in Strasbourg in June this year?

RB:  No, unfortunately. I am not in a position to attend this meeting.

EASE:  What motivated you to write for ESE?

RB:  Dr Joan Marsh asked me to contribute an essay to ESE. She asked me to write on ‘medical editing in India’ as not much is available regarding this topic from this country. Frankly, I was initially nervous to write on this topic as nothing much was available for me to cite.  I did not know what was expected of me. However, I am happy with final product. I am thankful to the reviewers for their constructive critical comments which helped me revise my manuscript.

EASE:  What impact do you hope this paper could have, what changes could it make?

RB:  I gave few recommendations in this paper that I forwarded to Indian editors and authorities. I hope they take it seriously.  

EASE:  If people want to read more about this subject, can you name one or two specific articles they should read?

RB:  I recommend these articles:

Satyanarayana K, Sharma A. Biomedical Journals in India: Some criticalconcerns. Indian Journal of Medical Research 2010; 132: 119-122.

Agoramoorthy G. Urgent reforms needed to revive impact factor of India’smedical journals. Indian Journal of Medical Research 2008; 127: 410-412. 

Aggarwal, R., Gogtay, N., Kumar, R., & Sahni, P. (2016). The revisedguidelines of the Medical Council of India for academic promotions: need for arethink. Indian Journal Of Medical Ethics, 13(1), 2.


EASE:  Are there any websites or other resources related to your paper they should seek out?

RB:  I recommend these websites:

National Databases of Indian Medical Journals (
IndMED): http://indmed.nic.in

Medical Council of India, guidelines for faculty promotion:
http://www.mciindia.org/circulars/Circular-03.09.2015-TEQ-Promotion-Publication.pdf

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can find Professor Bipeta’s article in the full August issue of the ESE Journal archive on the EASE website here. His ORCiD profile can be found here.


Previous interviews in the ESE Author Q&A series can be found here


Interview conducted by Duncan Nicholas of the EASE Council.

Friday, March 18, 2016

A: ESE Author Q&A: Daniel Johnston



Welcome to the first of a new regular feature we will be bringing you on the EASEBlog – interviews with our European Science Editing authors.

Through these interviews, we aim to pursue our goals of scientific responsibility, knowledge sharing and communication by shedding more light on the people behind the articles you read in the ESE Journal, provide some further detail and background to the publications, and help spread the messages from the people and their papers to the publishing community and the general public.

So to our very first interviewee: Publons co-founder Daniel Johnston tells us more about his work incentivising and recognising the work of peer reviewers, and offers further insight into his article which appeared in European Science Editing
41(3); Peer review incentives: a simple idea to encourage fast and effective peer review.

The article is now free to access from the EASE website. Download it here.

We begin, by asking Daniel to summarise the themes of the paper he wrote for European Science Editing:

Daniel Johnston: The peer review process is unnecessarily slow and inefficient due to a lack of incentives for researchers to prioritise peer review.  Providing recognition for peer review contributions in a format that researchers can use to advance their career -- a service provided by Publons -- encourages researchers to prioritise peer review and results in a faster review process.  In addition, indexing the review history of researchers across all publishers makes it possible to provide tools for editors to further improve the peer review process.

EASE: What is your main role at Publons?

DJ: As one of two Publons cofounders my role is part-strategic, part-operational, and has varied a lot over the years.  Currently my focus is on improving the Publons product for reviewers, editors, and publishers.



EASE
: How long have you been involved in this area?

DJ: We formally launched Publons in 2013, about four years after we first started work on the idea.

EASE: What are some of the most innovative aspects you could tell us about your work?

DJ: As the first in this space, almost everything we do is innovative by definition!  I’d say the most notable innovation is the idea at the heart of Publons -- that you can incentivise better and faster peer review by giving reviewers credit in a format they can add to their resume.

EASE: What do you feel are your most significant work-related achievements?

DJ: Taking that idea and making it work, to the point now where we are seeing 1% of the world’s peer review flow through Publons.  We’re particularly happy to see Publons is already speeding up science, as we’ve seen from before/after analysis of our pilots with publishers.  Offering credit on Publons increases review invitation acceptance rates by about 18% for a typical journal, and decreases review turnaround time by about 8%.

EASE: Those are impressive results.  How did you isolate the effect of the Publons credit? Did you use control groups within the same journal, or other journals as controls?

DJ: We intend to publish the full analysis in the near future, but I can speak a little bit to our methodology:

We can isolate the effect pretty well through two major comparisons: comparing a journal's peer review metrics before and after the Publons integration started, and comparing metrics for reviewers that ‘opt in’ to Publons versus the metrics for reviewers that ‘opt out’ (i.e. choose not to participate).  The reviewers that choose not to join Publons act as a pretty good control.  By comparing these two reviewer groups before Publons we were also able to determine that the differences were not due to selection bias.

This was a small preliminary study on 15 journals across multiple publishers.  We have around 200 integrated journals on Publons now, so would love for a research team to do a more comprehensive study on the effects of reviewer credit on the peer review process.

EASE: Do you have any interesting projects in the next year or so, that you are able to speak about?

DJ: Providing value to editors is our next big project.  The aim is to not only provide public recognition for the work of editors, but also to supply editors with tools that make their editorial activities easier.  With the world’s largest database of verified reviews there are a lot of exciting tools we can build for editors.

EASE: Some questions now, about the article you wrote for us.  What motivated you to write for ESE?

DJ: It was a good opportunity to reach out directly to a community of editors.  At that time most of the information on our website was tailored to reviewers, so it was nice to focus on how Publons works for editors.

EASE: What impact do you hope this paper could have, what changes could it make?

DJ: I hope it gets editors excited about Publons!  We have really good traction among reviewers and publishers, and expect many more editors to add Publons to their editorial toolbelt as we roll out improvements to our services for editors in the coming months.

The potential impact is enormous: the greater the number of editors and reviewers using Publons, the greater the effect on speeding up peer review and increasing the rate of scientific discovery.

EASE: If people want to read more about this subject, can you name one or two specific articles they should read?
Are there any websites or other resources related to your paper they should seek out?

DJ: I’d recommend readers check out these new resources/articles:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can find Daniel's article, in the full August issue of the ESE Journal archive on the EASE website here.


Interview conducted by Duncan Nicholas of the EASE Council.