PeerJ:Science Policyhttps://peerj.com/articles/index.atom?journal=peerj&subject=7800Science Policy articles published in PeerJDoes it pay to pay? A comparison of the benefits of open-access publishing across various sub-fields in biologyhttps://peerj.com/articles/168242024-02-272024-02-27Amanda D. ClarkTanner C. MyersTodd D. SteuryAli KrztonJulio YanesAngela BarberJacqueline BarrySubarna BaruaKatherine EatonDevadatta GosaviRebecca NanceZahida PervaizChidozie UgochukwuPatricia HartmanLaurie S. Stevison
Authors are often faced with the decision of whether to maximize traditional impact metrics or minimize costs when choosing where to publish the results of their research. Many subscription-based journals now offer the option of paying an article processing charge (APC) to make their work open. Though such “hybrid” journals make research more accessible to readers, their APCs often come with high price tags and can exclude authors who lack the capacity to pay to make their research accessible. Here, we tested if paying to publish open access in a subscription-based journal benefited authors by conferring more citations relative to closed access articles. We identified 146,415 articles published in 152 hybrid journals in the field of biology from 2013–2018 to compare the number of citations between various types of open access and closed access articles. In a simple generalized linear model analysis of our full dataset, we found that publishing open access in hybrid journals that offer the option confers an average citation advantage to authors of 17.8 citations compared to closed access articles in similar journals. After taking into account the number of authors, Journal Citation Reports 2020 Quartile, year of publication, and Web of Science category, we still found that open access generated significantly more citations than closed access (p < 0.0001). However, results were complex, with exact differences in citation rates among access types impacted by these other variables. This citation advantage based on access type was even similar when comparing open and closed access articles published in the same issue of a journal (p < 0.0001). However, by examining articles where the authors paid an article processing charge, we found that cost itself was not predictive of citation rates (p = 0.14). Based on our findings of access type and other model parameters, we suggest that, in the case of the 152 journals we analyzed, paying for open access does confer a citation advantage. For authors with limited budgets, we recommend pursuing open access alternatives that do not require paying a fee as they still yielded more citations than closed access. For authors who are considering where to submit their next article, we offer additional suggestions on how to balance exposure via citations with publishing costs.
Authors are often faced with the decision of whether to maximize traditional impact metrics or minimize costs when choosing where to publish the results of their research. Many subscription-based journals now offer the option of paying an article processing charge (APC) to make their work open. Though such “hybrid” journals make research more accessible to readers, their APCs often come with high price tags and can exclude authors who lack the capacity to pay to make their research accessible. Here, we tested if paying to publish open access in a subscription-based journal benefited authors by conferring more citations relative to closed access articles. We identified 146,415 articles published in 152 hybrid journals in the field of biology from 2013–2018 to compare the number of citations between various types of open access and closed access articles. In a simple generalized linear model analysis of our full dataset, we found that publishing open access in hybrid journals that offer the option confers an average citation advantage to authors of 17.8 citations compared to closed access articles in similar journals. After taking into account the number of authors, Journal Citation Reports 2020 Quartile, year of publication, and Web of Science category, we still found that open access generated significantly more citations than closed access (p < 0.0001). However, results were complex, with exact differences in citation rates among access types impacted by these other variables. This citation advantage based on access type was even similar when comparing open and closed access articles published in the same issue of a journal (p < 0.0001). However, by examining articles where the authors paid an article processing charge, we found that cost itself was not predictive of citation rates (p = 0.14). Based on our findings of access type and other model parameters, we suggest that, in the case of the 152 journals we analyzed, paying for open access does confer a citation advantage. For authors with limited budgets, we recommend pursuing open access alternatives that do not require paying a fee as they still yielded more citations than closed access. For authors who are considering where to submit their next article, we offer additional suggestions on how to balance exposure via citations with publishing costs.Metabarcoding is (usually) more cost effective than seining or qPCR for detecting tidewater gobies and other estuarine fisheshttps://peerj.com/articles/168472024-02-262024-02-26Kevin Lafferty
Many studies have shown that environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling can be more sensitive than traditional sampling. For instance, past studies found a specific qPCR probe of a water sample is better than a seine for detecting the endangered northern tidewater goby, Eucyclogobius newberryi. Furthermore, a metabarcoding sample often detects more fish species than a seine detects. Less consideration has been given to sampling costs. To help managers choose the best sampling method for their budget, I estimated detectability and costs per sample to compare the cost effectiveness of seining, qPCR and metabarcoding for detecting endangered tidewater gobies as well as the associated estuarine fish community in California. Five samples were enough for eDNA methods to confidently detect tidewater gobies, whereas seining took twice as many samples. Fixed program costs can be high for qPCR and seining, whereas metabarcoding had high per-sample costs, which led to changes in relative cost-effectiveness with the number of locations sampled. Under some circumstances (multiple locations visited or an already validated assay), qPCR was a bit more cost effective than metabarcoding for detecting tidewater gobies. Under all assumptions, seining was the least cost-effective method for detecting tidewater gobies or other fishes. Metabarcoding was the most cost-effective sampling method for multiple species detection. Despite its advantages, metabarcoding has gaps in sequence databases, can yield vague results for some species, and can lead novices to serious errors. Seining remains the only way to rapidly assess densities, size distributions, and fine-scale spatial distributions.
Many studies have shown that environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling can be more sensitive than traditional sampling. For instance, past studies found a specific qPCR probe of a water sample is better than a seine for detecting the endangered northern tidewater goby, Eucyclogobius newberryi. Furthermore, a metabarcoding sample often detects more fish species than a seine detects. Less consideration has been given to sampling costs. To help managers choose the best sampling method for their budget, I estimated detectability and costs per sample to compare the cost effectiveness of seining, qPCR and metabarcoding for detecting endangered tidewater gobies as well as the associated estuarine fish community in California. Five samples were enough for eDNA methods to confidently detect tidewater gobies, whereas seining took twice as many samples. Fixed program costs can be high for qPCR and seining, whereas metabarcoding had high per-sample costs, which led to changes in relative cost-effectiveness with the number of locations sampled. Under some circumstances (multiple locations visited or an already validated assay), qPCR was a bit more cost effective than metabarcoding for detecting tidewater gobies. Under all assumptions, seining was the least cost-effective method for detecting tidewater gobies or other fishes. Metabarcoding was the most cost-effective sampling method for multiple species detection. Despite its advantages, metabarcoding has gaps in sequence databases, can yield vague results for some species, and can lead novices to serious errors. Seining remains the only way to rapidly assess densities, size distributions, and fine-scale spatial distributions.A survey of researchers’ methods sharing practices and prioritieshttps://peerj.com/articles/167312024-01-032024-01-03Marcel LaFlammeJames HarneyIain Hrynaszkiewicz
Missing or inaccessible information about the methods used in scientific research slows the pace of discovery and hampers reproducibility. Yet little is known about how, why, and under what conditions researchers share detailed methods information, or about how such practices vary across social categories like career stage, field, and region. In this exploratory study, we surveyed 997 active researchers about their attitudes and behaviors with respect to methods sharing. The most common approach reported by respondents was private sharing upon request, but a substantial minority (33%) had publicly shared detailed methods information independently of their research findings. The most widely used channels for public sharing were connected to peer-reviewed publications, while the most significant barriers to public sharing were found to be lack of time and lack of awareness about how or where to share. Insofar as respondents were moderately satisfied with their ability to accomplish various goals associated with methods sharing, we conclude that efforts to increase public sharing may wish to focus on enhancing and building awareness of existing solutions—even as future research should seek to understand the needs of methods users and the extent to which they align with prevailing practices of sharing.
Missing or inaccessible information about the methods used in scientific research slows the pace of discovery and hampers reproducibility. Yet little is known about how, why, and under what conditions researchers share detailed methods information, or about how such practices vary across social categories like career stage, field, and region. In this exploratory study, we surveyed 997 active researchers about their attitudes and behaviors with respect to methods sharing. The most common approach reported by respondents was private sharing upon request, but a substantial minority (33%) had publicly shared detailed methods information independently of their research findings. The most widely used channels for public sharing were connected to peer-reviewed publications, while the most significant barriers to public sharing were found to be lack of time and lack of awareness about how or where to share. Insofar as respondents were moderately satisfied with their ability to accomplish various goals associated with methods sharing, we conclude that efforts to increase public sharing may wish to focus on enhancing and building awareness of existing solutions—even as future research should seek to understand the needs of methods users and the extent to which they align with prevailing practices of sharing.Composite environmental indices—a case of rickety rankingshttps://peerj.com/articles/163252023-12-112023-12-11Shelley M. StevensMichael K. JoyWokje AbrahamseTaciano L. MilfontLynda M. Petherick
Composite indices have been widely used to rank the environmental performance of nations. Such environmental indices can be useful in communicating complex information as a single value and have the potential to generate political and media awareness of environmental issues. However, poorly constructed, or poorly communicated indices, can hinder efforts to identify environmental failings, and there are considerable differences in rank among existing environmental indices. Here, we provide a review of the conceptual frameworks and methodological choices used for existing environmental indices to enhance our understanding of their accuracy and applicability. In the present study, we review existing global indices according to their conceptual framework (objectives of the index and set of indicators included) and methodological choices made in their construction (e.g., weighting and aggregation). We examine how differences in conceptual frameworks and methodology may yield a more, or less, optimistic view of a country’s environment. Our results indicate that (1) multidimensional environmental indices with indicators related to human health and welfare or policy are positively correlated; (2) environment-only indices are positively correlated with one another or are not correlated at all; (3) multidimensional indices and environment-only indices are negatively correlated with each other or are not correlated at all. This indicates that the conceptual frameworks and indicators included may influence a country’s rank among different environmental indices. Our results highlight that, when choosing an existing environmental index—or developing a new one—it is important to assess whether the conceptual framework (and associated indicators) and methodological choices are appropriate for the phenomenon being measured and reported on. This is important because the inclusion of confounding indicators in environmental indices may provide a misleading view of the quality of a country’s environment.
Composite indices have been widely used to rank the environmental performance of nations. Such environmental indices can be useful in communicating complex information as a single value and have the potential to generate political and media awareness of environmental issues. However, poorly constructed, or poorly communicated indices, can hinder efforts to identify environmental failings, and there are considerable differences in rank among existing environmental indices. Here, we provide a review of the conceptual frameworks and methodological choices used for existing environmental indices to enhance our understanding of their accuracy and applicability. In the present study, we review existing global indices according to their conceptual framework (objectives of the index and set of indicators included) and methodological choices made in their construction (e.g., weighting and aggregation). We examine how differences in conceptual frameworks and methodology may yield a more, or less, optimistic view of a country’s environment. Our results indicate that (1) multidimensional environmental indices with indicators related to human health and welfare or policy are positively correlated; (2) environment-only indices are positively correlated with one another or are not correlated at all; (3) multidimensional indices and environment-only indices are negatively correlated with each other or are not correlated at all. This indicates that the conceptual frameworks and indicators included may influence a country’s rank among different environmental indices. Our results highlight that, when choosing an existing environmental index—or developing a new one—it is important to assess whether the conceptual framework (and associated indicators) and methodological choices are appropriate for the phenomenon being measured and reported on. This is important because the inclusion of confounding indicators in environmental indices may provide a misleading view of the quality of a country’s environment.How does abstract and concrete garbage classification signage influence waste sorting behavior?https://peerj.com/articles/165972023-12-052023-12-05Gai CaoRong CaoPeng Liu
Despite the issuance of standardized garbage classification signage, the rate of garbage classification in China remains low. We conducted a pair of laboratory experiments to explore the cognitive processing differences between abstract (including recyclables, hazardous garbage, and food signs) and concrete (including paper, plastic, glass, metal, textiles, batteries, household chemicals, tubes, and food signs) classification signs. We tested a nudging strategy to enhance garbage classification behavior. In Experiment 1, we divided garbage classification signs into two conditions: an abstract condition (comprising abstract signs) and a concrete condition (comprising concrete signs). The Go/No Go task was used to simulate garbage classification behavior. Participants were instructed to press a key when the garbage stimulus matched the classification signs (Go condition) and to refrain from pressing the key when there was a mismatch (No Go condition). The results showed that responses under the concrete condition were expedited compared to those under the abstract condition. This suggests that concrete signage requires less cognitive exertion, thereby enhancing the efficiency of waste classification. In Experiment 2, we optimized the existing bin signage, which predominantly featured abstract signs (traditional condition), and transformed it into a bin signage that emphasized concrete classification signs. These concrete signs were strategically positioned on the upper part of the bins to draw attention (nudging condition). The results suggested that the nudging condition required fewer cognitive resources than the traditional condition, which in turn increased the efficiency of processing garbage classification. This study not only validates the effects of concreteness in garbage classification but also provides effective nudge strategies to complement existing garbage classification management policy tools in a realistic Chinese context.
Despite the issuance of standardized garbage classification signage, the rate of garbage classification in China remains low. We conducted a pair of laboratory experiments to explore the cognitive processing differences between abstract (including recyclables, hazardous garbage, and food signs) and concrete (including paper, plastic, glass, metal, textiles, batteries, household chemicals, tubes, and food signs) classification signs. We tested a nudging strategy to enhance garbage classification behavior. In Experiment 1, we divided garbage classification signs into two conditions: an abstract condition (comprising abstract signs) and a concrete condition (comprising concrete signs). The Go/No Go task was used to simulate garbage classification behavior. Participants were instructed to press a key when the garbage stimulus matched the classification signs (Go condition) and to refrain from pressing the key when there was a mismatch (No Go condition). The results showed that responses under the concrete condition were expedited compared to those under the abstract condition. This suggests that concrete signage requires less cognitive exertion, thereby enhancing the efficiency of waste classification. In Experiment 2, we optimized the existing bin signage, which predominantly featured abstract signs (traditional condition), and transformed it into a bin signage that emphasized concrete classification signs. These concrete signs were strategically positioned on the upper part of the bins to draw attention (nudging condition). The results suggested that the nudging condition required fewer cognitive resources than the traditional condition, which in turn increased the efficiency of processing garbage classification. This study not only validates the effects of concreteness in garbage classification but also provides effective nudge strategies to complement existing garbage classification management policy tools in a realistic Chinese context.Towards a scientific community consensus on designating Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems from imageryhttps://peerj.com/articles/160242023-10-122023-10-12Amy R. BacoRebecca RossFranziska AlthausDiva AmonAmelia E. H. BridgesSaskia BrixPål Buhl-MortensenAna ColacoMarina Carreiro-SilvaMalcolm R. ClarkCherisse Du PreezMari-Lise FrankenMatthew GianniGenoveva Gonzalez-MirelisThomas HouriganKerry HowellLisa A. LevinDhugal J. LindsayTina N. MolodtsovaNicole MorganTelmo MoratoBeatriz E. Mejia-MercadoDavid O’SullivanTabitha PearmanDavid PriceKatleen RobertLaura RobsonAshley A. RowdenJames TaylorMichelle TaylorLissette VictoreroLes WatlingAlan WilliamsJoana R. XavierChris Yesson
Management of deep-sea fisheries in areas beyond national jurisdiction by Regional Fisheries Management Organizations/Arrangements (RFMO/As) requires identification of areas with Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs). Currently, fisheries data, including trawl and longline bycatch data, are used by many RFMO/As to inform the identification of VMEs. However, the collection of such data creates impacts and there is a need to collect non-invasive data for VME identification and monitoring purposes. Imagery data from scientific surveys satisfies this requirement, but there currently is no established framework for identifying VMEs from images. Thus, the goal of this study was to bring together a large international team to determine current VME assessment protocols and establish preliminary global consensus guidelines for identifying VMEs from images. An initial assessment showed a lack of consistency among RFMO/A regions regarding what is considered a VME indicator taxon, and hence variability in how VMEs might be defined. In certain cases, experts agreed that a VME could be identified from a single image, most often in areas of scleractinian reefs, dense octocoral gardens, multiple VME species’ co-occurrence, and chemosynthetic ecosystems. A decision flow chart is presented that gives practical interpretation of the FAO criteria for single images. To further evaluate steps of the flow chart related to density, data were compiled to assess whether scientists perceived similar density thresholds across regions. The range of observed densities and the density values considered to be VMEs varied considerably by taxon, but in many cases, there was a statistical difference in what experts considered to be a VME compared to images not considered a VME. Further work is required to develop an areal extent index, to include a measure of confidence, and to increase our understanding of what levels of density and diversity correspond to key ecosystem functions for VME indicator taxa. Based on our results, the following recommendations are made: 1. There is a need to establish a global consensus on which taxa are VME indicators. 2. RFMO/As should consider adopting guidelines that use imagery surveys as an alternative (or complement) to using bycatch and trawl surveys for designating VMEs. 3. Imagery surveys should also be included in Impact Assessments. And 4. All industries that impact the seafloor, not just fisheries, should use imagery surveys to detect and identify VMEs.
Management of deep-sea fisheries in areas beyond national jurisdiction by Regional Fisheries Management Organizations/Arrangements (RFMO/As) requires identification of areas with Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs). Currently, fisheries data, including trawl and longline bycatch data, are used by many RFMO/As to inform the identification of VMEs. However, the collection of such data creates impacts and there is a need to collect non-invasive data for VME identification and monitoring purposes. Imagery data from scientific surveys satisfies this requirement, but there currently is no established framework for identifying VMEs from images. Thus, the goal of this study was to bring together a large international team to determine current VME assessment protocols and establish preliminary global consensus guidelines for identifying VMEs from images. An initial assessment showed a lack of consistency among RFMO/A regions regarding what is considered a VME indicator taxon, and hence variability in how VMEs might be defined. In certain cases, experts agreed that a VME could be identified from a single image, most often in areas of scleractinian reefs, dense octocoral gardens, multiple VME species’ co-occurrence, and chemosynthetic ecosystems. A decision flow chart is presented that gives practical interpretation of the FAO criteria for single images. To further evaluate steps of the flow chart related to density, data were compiled to assess whether scientists perceived similar density thresholds across regions. The range of observed densities and the density values considered to be VMEs varied considerably by taxon, but in many cases, there was a statistical difference in what experts considered to be a VME compared to images not considered a VME. Further work is required to develop an areal extent index, to include a measure of confidence, and to increase our understanding of what levels of density and diversity correspond to key ecosystem functions for VME indicator taxa. Based on our results, the following recommendations are made: 1. There is a need to establish a global consensus on which taxa are VME indicators. 2. RFMO/As should consider adopting guidelines that use imagery surveys as an alternative (or complement) to using bycatch and trawl surveys for designating VMEs. 3. Imagery surveys should also be included in Impact Assessments. And 4. All industries that impact the seafloor, not just fisheries, should use imagery surveys to detect and identify VMEs.Predicting the contribution of climate change on North Atlantic underwater sound propagationhttps://peerj.com/articles/162082023-10-102023-10-10Luca PossentiGert-Jan ReichartLennart de NooijerFrans-Peter LamChrist de JongMathieu ColinBas BinnertsAmber BootAnna von der Heydt
Since the industrial revolution, oceans have become substantially noisier. The noise increase is mainly caused by increased shipping, resource exploration, and infrastructure development affecting marine life at multiple levels, including behavior and physiology. Together with increasing anthropogenic noise, climate change is altering the thermal structure of the oceans, which in turn might affect noise propagation. During this century, we are witnessing an increase in seawater temperature and a decrease in ocean pH. Ocean acidification will decrease sound absorption at low frequencies (<10 kHz), enhancing long-range sound propagation. At the same time, temperature changes can modify the sound speed profile, leading to the creation or disappearance of sound ducts in which sound can propagate over large distances. The worldwide effect of climate change was explored for the winter and summer seasons using the (2018 to 2022) and (2094 to 2098, projected) atmospheric and seawater temperature, salinity, pH and wind speed as input. Using numerical modelling, we here explore the impact of climate change on underwater sound propagation. The future climate variables were taken from a Community Earth System Model v2 (CESM2) simulations forced under the concentration-driven SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5 scenarios. The sound modeling results show, for future climate change scenarios, a global increase of sound speed at different depths (5, 125, 300, and 640 m) except for the North Atlantic Ocean and the Norwegian Sea, where in the upper 125 m sound speed will decrease by as much as 40 m s−1. This decrease in sound speed results in a new sub-surface duct in the upper 200 m of the water column allowing ship noise to propagate over large distances (>500 km). In the case of the Northeast Atlantic Ocean, this sub-surface duct will only be present during winter, leading to similar total mean square pressure level (SPLtot) values in the summer for both (2018 to 2022) and (2094 to 2098). We observed a strong and similar correlation for the two climate change scenarios, with an increase of the top 200 m SPLtot and a slowdown of Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) leading to an increase of SPLtot at the end of the century by 7 dB.
Since the industrial revolution, oceans have become substantially noisier. The noise increase is mainly caused by increased shipping, resource exploration, and infrastructure development affecting marine life at multiple levels, including behavior and physiology. Together with increasing anthropogenic noise, climate change is altering the thermal structure of the oceans, which in turn might affect noise propagation. During this century, we are witnessing an increase in seawater temperature and a decrease in ocean pH. Ocean acidification will decrease sound absorption at low frequencies (<10 kHz), enhancing long-range sound propagation. At the same time, temperature changes can modify the sound speed profile, leading to the creation or disappearance of sound ducts in which sound can propagate over large distances. The worldwide effect of climate change was explored for the winter and summer seasons using the (2018 to 2022) and (2094 to 2098, projected) atmospheric and seawater temperature, salinity, pH and wind speed as input. Using numerical modelling, we here explore the impact of climate change on underwater sound propagation. The future climate variables were taken from a Community Earth System Model v2 (CESM2) simulations forced under the concentration-driven SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5 scenarios. The sound modeling results show, for future climate change scenarios, a global increase of sound speed at different depths (5, 125, 300, and 640 m) except for the North Atlantic Ocean and the Norwegian Sea, where in the upper 125 m sound speed will decrease by as much as 40 m s−1. This decrease in sound speed results in a new sub-surface duct in the upper 200 m of the water column allowing ship noise to propagate over large distances (>500 km). In the case of the Northeast Atlantic Ocean, this sub-surface duct will only be present during winter, leading to similar total mean square pressure level (SPLtot) values in the summer for both (2018 to 2022) and (2094 to 2098). We observed a strong and similar correlation for the two climate change scenarios, with an increase of the top 200 m SPLtot and a slowdown of Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) leading to an increase of SPLtot at the end of the century by 7 dB.The experiences of COVID-19 preprint authors: a survey of researchers about publishing and receiving feedback on their work during the pandemichttps://peerj.com/articles/158642023-08-222023-08-22Narmin RzayevaSusana Oliveira HenriquesStephen PinfieldLudo Waltman
The COVID-19 pandemic caused a rise in preprinting, triggered by the need for open and rapid dissemination of research outputs. We surveyed authors of COVID-19 preprints to learn about their experiences with preprinting their work and also with publishing their work in a peer-reviewed journal. Our research had the following objectives: 1. to learn about authors’ experiences with preprinting, their motivations, and future intentions; 2. to consider preprints in terms of their effectiveness in enabling authors to receive feedback on their work; 3. to compare the impact of feedback on preprints with the impact of comments of editors and reviewers on papers submitted to journals. In our survey, 78% of the new adopters of preprinting reported the intention to also preprint their future work. The boost in preprinting may therefore have a structural effect that will last after the pandemic, although future developments will also depend on other factors, including the broader growth in the adoption of open science practices. A total of 53% of the respondents reported that they had received feedback on their preprints. However, more than half of the feedback was received through “closed” channels–privately to the authors. This means that preprinting was a useful way to receive feedback on research, but the value of feedback could be increased further by facilitating and promoting “open” channels for preprint feedback. Almost a quarter of the feedback received by respondents consisted of detailed comments, showing the potential of preprint feedback to provide valuable comments on research. Respondents also reported that, compared to preprint feedback, journal peer review was more likely to lead to major changes to their work, suggesting that journal peer review provides significant added value compared to feedback received on preprints.
The COVID-19 pandemic caused a rise in preprinting, triggered by the need for open and rapid dissemination of research outputs. We surveyed authors of COVID-19 preprints to learn about their experiences with preprinting their work and also with publishing their work in a peer-reviewed journal. Our research had the following objectives: 1. to learn about authors’ experiences with preprinting, their motivations, and future intentions; 2. to consider preprints in terms of their effectiveness in enabling authors to receive feedback on their work; 3. to compare the impact of feedback on preprints with the impact of comments of editors and reviewers on papers submitted to journals. In our survey, 78% of the new adopters of preprinting reported the intention to also preprint their future work. The boost in preprinting may therefore have a structural effect that will last after the pandemic, although future developments will also depend on other factors, including the broader growth in the adoption of open science practices. A total of 53% of the respondents reported that they had received feedback on their preprints. However, more than half of the feedback was received through “closed” channels–privately to the authors. This means that preprinting was a useful way to receive feedback on research, but the value of feedback could be increased further by facilitating and promoting “open” channels for preprint feedback. Almost a quarter of the feedback received by respondents consisted of detailed comments, showing the potential of preprint feedback to provide valuable comments on research. Respondents also reported that, compared to preprint feedback, journal peer review was more likely to lead to major changes to their work, suggesting that journal peer review provides significant added value compared to feedback received on preprints.Collateral damage: has the COVID-19 pandemic more strongly impacted medical research than other scientific areas?https://peerj.com/articles/154362023-06-132023-06-13Alejandro Farji-BrenerSabrina Amador-Vargas
The principle of resource allocation states that diversion of resources to attend a function may compromise others. The COVID-19 pandemic required a rapid response with a justifiable relocation of equipment, funds and human resources. Based on the ecological principle of allocation, we tested whether the relocation of resources to support COVID-19 research was more detrimental to medical research than to research in other scientific areas. We compared the yearly number of published articles from 2015 to 2021 using disease-related keywords and non-medical scientific keywords. Contrary to the expectation, we found an abrupt reduction in the publication rates in all research areas from 2019 to 2020 or 2021, compared to the pre-pandemic period (2015–2019). The allocation effect on medical research may be overshadowed by stronger effects of the pandemic, or it may become evident in the coming years. The drastic reduction in published papers could have negative consequences for scientific advancements, including understanding and curing diseases other than COVID-19 that strongly affect humanity.
The principle of resource allocation states that diversion of resources to attend a function may compromise others. The COVID-19 pandemic required a rapid response with a justifiable relocation of equipment, funds and human resources. Based on the ecological principle of allocation, we tested whether the relocation of resources to support COVID-19 research was more detrimental to medical research than to research in other scientific areas. We compared the yearly number of published articles from 2015 to 2021 using disease-related keywords and non-medical scientific keywords. Contrary to the expectation, we found an abrupt reduction in the publication rates in all research areas from 2019 to 2020 or 2021, compared to the pre-pandemic period (2015–2019). The allocation effect on medical research may be overshadowed by stronger effects of the pandemic, or it may become evident in the coming years. The drastic reduction in published papers could have negative consequences for scientific advancements, including understanding and curing diseases other than COVID-19 that strongly affect humanity.Estimating the impact of new high seas activities on the environment: the effects of ocean-surface macroplastic removal on sea surface ecosystemshttps://peerj.com/articles/150212023-04-272023-04-27Matthew SpencerFiona CulhaneFiona ChongMegan O. PowellRozemarijn J. Roland HolstRebecca Helm
The open ocean beyond national jurisdiction covers nearly half of Earth’s surface and is largely unexplored. It is also an emerging frontier for new types of human activity. Understanding how new activities interact with high seas ecosystems is critical for our management of this other half of Earth. Using The Ocean Cleanup (TOC) as a model, we demonstrate why it is important to account for uncertainty when assessing and evaluating impacts of novel high seas activities on marine ecosystems. TOC’s aim is to remove plastic from the ocean surface by collecting it with large nets. However, this approach also results in the collection of surface marine life (neuston) as by-catch. Using an interdisciplinary approach, we explore the social-ecological implications of this activity. We use population models to quantify potential impacts on the surface ecosystem; we determine the links between these ecosystems and society through an ecosystem services approach; and we review the governance setting relevant to the management of activities on the high seas. We show that the impact of ocean surface plastic removal largely depends on neuston life histories, and ranges from potentially mild to severe. We identify broader social-ecological implications that could be felt by stakeholders both beyond and within national jurisdiction. The legal framework applicable to TOC’s activities is insufficiently specific to address both the ecological and social uncertainty we describe, demonstrating the urgent need for detailed rules and procedures on environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment to be adopted under the new International Agreement on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction which is currently being negotiated.
The open ocean beyond national jurisdiction covers nearly half of Earth’s surface and is largely unexplored. It is also an emerging frontier for new types of human activity. Understanding how new activities interact with high seas ecosystems is critical for our management of this other half of Earth. Using The Ocean Cleanup (TOC) as a model, we demonstrate why it is important to account for uncertainty when assessing and evaluating impacts of novel high seas activities on marine ecosystems. TOC’s aim is to remove plastic from the ocean surface by collecting it with large nets. However, this approach also results in the collection of surface marine life (neuston) as by-catch. Using an interdisciplinary approach, we explore the social-ecological implications of this activity. We use population models to quantify potential impacts on the surface ecosystem; we determine the links between these ecosystems and society through an ecosystem services approach; and we review the governance setting relevant to the management of activities on the high seas. We show that the impact of ocean surface plastic removal largely depends on neuston life histories, and ranges from potentially mild to severe. We identify broader social-ecological implications that could be felt by stakeholders both beyond and within national jurisdiction. The legal framework applicable to TOC’s activities is insufficiently specific to address both the ecological and social uncertainty we describe, demonstrating the urgent need for detailed rules and procedures on environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment to be adopted under the new International Agreement on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction which is currently being negotiated.