[AUDITORY] preprints, community journals, and the carbon footprint of hearing healthcare ("Wasmann, Jan-Willem" )

Subject: [AUDITORY] preprints, community journals, and the carbon footprint of hearing healthcare From: "Wasmann, Jan-Willem" <Jan-Willem.Wasmann@xxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2022 11:16:43 +0000 --_000_AM9PR09MB5203FF254F33363DBF23EB06DF389AM9PR09MB5203eurp_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear list, Via this thread, I=92d like to touch upon preprints, community journals, an= d the carbon footprint of hearing healthcare. If you are in a hurry, please= skip this message TLDR. Otherwise, it would be great to tap into your coll= ective wisdom. In recent years, preprints have become increasingly popular to increase ope= n access. Some preprints get cited a lot (e.g., https://www.biorxiv.org/con= tent/10.1101/2021.10.04.463034v2.abstract > 300 times). And especially in A= I, some preprints will probably never get peer-reviewed. A well-known examp= le is: Saon G, Kurata G, Sercu T, Audhkhasi K, Thomas S, Dimitriadis D, et al. Eng= lish Conversational Telephone Speech Recognition by Humans and Machines. Ar= Xiv170302136 Cs (2017). Available online at: http://arxiv.org/ abs/1703.021= 36 There are multiple platforms to use. The most well-known is Biorxiv<https:/= /www.biorxiv.org/> or Arxiv<https://arxiv.org/>. But also OSF<https://osf.i= o/preprints/?utm_term=3Dopen%20science%20framework&utm_campaign=3DOSF+Gener= al&utm_source=3Dadwords&utm_medium=3Dppc&hsa_acc=3D5222345373&hsa_cam=3D217= 339509&hsa_grp=3D36452477753&hsa_ad=3D150809658182&hsa_src=3Dg&hsa_tgt=3Dkw= d-300201585279&hsa_kw=3Dopen%20science%20framework&hsa_mt=3Db&hsa_net=3Dadw= ords&hsa_ver=3D3&gclid=3DEAIaIQobChMIp-_k7sGR-wIVFweLCh2Sbw5YEAAYASAAEgIj7v= D_BwE> or Zenodo<https://zenodo.org/record/5600535#.Y2NxnaSZOUk>. I have us= ed OSF since it has a broad scope and allows you to upload projects. It pro= vides a preprint DOI, which remains the same if you update the preprint at = a later stage. Also, you can link the DOI of the final peer-reviewed versio= n of your paper. Zenodo can also be used for projects (data+paper), but eve= ry update will create a new DOI. Q1a How do you regard the status of preprints? Q1b Is it a missed opportunity if one decides not to go for a peer-review p= rocess of a preprint? Another new development is open community-driven peer review procedures. I = found examples in other fields; see below. Q2a Do you know of examples of community-driven peer review in hearing scie= nces? Q2b Can you recommend a community-driven journal? Many scientists have responded to the new transparent consultative peer-rev= iew procedure by eLife (https://elifesciences.org/about/peer-review). This = might be an exciting venue for those looking for new ways of peer review. H= owever, the charges amount to $2000. The charges for open access can be eno= rmous (Nature $7000?) and a barrier for early career researchers. So far, I have found the following examples of community journal/peer revie= w processes: Pubpeer (The PubPeer Foundation is a California-registered public-benefit c= orporation with 501(c)(3) nonprofit status in the United States. The overar= ching goal of the Foundation is to improve the quality of scientific resear= ch by enabling innovative approaches for community interaction. The bylaws = of the Foundation establish pubpeer.com as a service run for the benefit of= its readers and commenters, who create its content. Our current focus is m= aintaining and developing the PubPeer online platform for post-publication = peer review. https://pubpeer.com/static/about_) Here you can find our preprint on that platform https://pubpeer.com/publications/AE2235B5F9F35577B977F87F9834B8 It looks like an easy platform to use. It can be used for creating special = issues/collections (see https://pubpeer.com/publications/peeriodicals). At = the start, I had trouble registering using my name/institution. An anonymou= s account was created quickly. Currently, PubPeer is used for post-publicat= ion review. I heard that in other disciplines, Pubpeer is used to flag susp= icious publications (read fraud). Another exciting example is ReviewCommons (Review Commons provides authors = with a Refereed Preprint, which includes the authors=92 manuscript, reports= from a single round of peer review and the authors=92 response. These Refe= reed Preprints are transferred on the author=92s behalf to bioRxiv. The mos= t recently-completed Review Commons peer-reviews are listed below, with the= most recently posted reviews at the top. https://www.reviewcommons.org/aut= hors/) Unfortunately, auditory sciences and audiology are not within the scope of = the peer-review initiative. The last example I know of is NBDT (NBDT is a community journal. If your ha= ndling editor sees it as in-scope it is appropriate. Editors are instructed= to only handle papers that they consider running as a journal club paper f= or their own lab https://nbdt.scholasticahq.com/for-authors). It=92s intere= sting to see their procedures, including =93Can you propose reviewers? Shor= t answer: no. Long answer: we did our own statistical analysis on a private= dataset and have concluded that it produces huge undesirable biases withou= t leading to better reviews.=94 The Carbon Footprint of Hearing Healthcare With Jan de Laat, I have just written a perspective paper/blog about the Ca= rbon Footprint of Hearing Healthcare (see version 2, Preprint DOI 10.31219/= osf.io/3sj5u<https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/3sj5u>). The hearing tracker w= ill publish the content today/tomorrow as a blog. So far, we have extracted= information from ESG reports<https://www.pwc.com/sk/en/environmental-socia= l-and-corporate-governance-esg/esg-reporting.html> and our contacts within = the hearing healthcare industry. Ideally, we would like to organize a commu= nity-driven review process to collect comments from engineers, industry, su= stainability officers, authors from ESG reports, and scientists. Q3a What would be a suitable platform to organize and publish a community-d= riven review process of a perspective paper about carbon footprint in heari= ng healthcare? Another ambition could be to create a carbon footprint tracker of hearing h= ealthcare by annually updating table 1 from the preprint, including an asse= ssment of whether climate ambitions by industry were updated and achieved. Q3b What would be a suitable approach to annually monitor the carbon footpr= int of the hearing healthcare industry? (Maybe not peer-reviewed?) Please let me know what you think is the best community journal for auditor= y sciences. Don't hesitate to let us know if you believe opinion pieces sho= uldn=92t get into the review process. For me publishing this perspective pa= per is a low-risk experiment. If it goes well, I will consider submitting a= n original research manuscript. Thank you for your time. I am looking forward to your responses and advice. Best regards, Jan-Willem Wasmann De informatie in dit bericht is uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde. = Aan dit bericht en de bijlagen kunnen geen rechten worden ontleend. Heeft u= deze e-mail onbedoeld ontvangen? Dan verzoeken wij u het te vernietigen en= de afzender te informeren. Openbaar maken, kopi=EBren en verspreiden van d= eze e-mail of informatie uit deze e-mail is alleen toegestaan met voorafgaa= nde schriftelijke toestemming van de afzender. Het Radboudumc staat geregis= treerd bij de Kamer van Koophandel in het handelsregister onder nummer 8026= 2783. The content of this message is intended solely for the addressee. No rights= can be derived from this message or its attachments. If you are not the in= tended recipient, we kindly request you to delete the message and inform th= e sender. It is strictly prohibited to disclose, copy or distribute this em= ail or the information inside it, without a written consent from the sender= . Radboud university medical center is registered with the Dutch Chamber of= Commerce trade register with number 80262783. --_000_AM9PR09MB5203FF254F33363DBF23EB06DF389AM9PR09MB5203eurp_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html> <head> <meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3DWindows-1= 252"> <style type=3D"text/css" style=3D"display:none;"> P {margin-top:0;margin-bo= ttom:0;} </style> </head> <body dir=3D"ltr"> <div style=3D"font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size= : 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class= =3D"elementToProof"> Dear list,<o:p class=3D"ContentPasted0"> </o:p> Via this thread, I=92d like to touch upon preprints, community journal= s, and the carbon footprint of hearing healthcare. If you are in a hurry, p= lease skip this message TLDR. Otherwise, it would be great to tap into your collective wisdom.<o:p class=3D"Content= Pasted0"> </o:p> <o:p class=3D"Conten= tPasted0"> </o:p> In recent years, preprints have become increasingly popular to increas= e open access. Some preprints get cited a lot (e.g., <a href=3D"https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.04.463034= v2.abstract" class=3D"ContentPasted0">https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.04.463034= v2.abstract</a> > 300 times). And especially in AI, some preprints will probably never = get peer-reviewed. A well-known example is: <o:p class=3D"ContentPasted0"> </o:p> Saon G, Kurata G, Sercu T, Audhkhasi K, Thomas S, Dimitriadis D, et al= . English Conversational Telephone Speech Recognition by Humans and Machine= s. ArXiv170302136 Cs (2017). Available online at: http://arxiv.org/ abs/1703.02136<o:p class=3D"ContentPasted0">&= nbsp;</o:p> <o:p class=3D"Conten= tPasted0"> </o:p> There are multiple platforms to use. The most well-known is <a href=3D"https://www.biorxiv.org/" class=3D"ContentPasted0">Biorxiv</a> or <a href=3D"https://arxiv.org/" class=3D"ContentPasted0">Arxiv</a>. But als= o <a href=3D"https://osf.io/preprints/?utm_term=3Dopen%20science%20fra= mework&utm_campaign=3DOSF+General&utm_source=3Dadwords&utm_medi= um=3Dppc&hsa_acc=3D5222345373&hsa_cam=3D217339509&hsa_grp=3D364= 52477753&hsa_ad=3D150809658182&hsa_src=3Dg&hsa_tgt=3Dkwd-300201= 585279&hsa_kw=3Dopen%20science%20framework&hsa_mt=3Db&hsa_net= =3Dadwords&hsa_ver=3D3&gclid=3DEAIaIQobChMIp-_k7sGR-wIVFweLCh2Sbw5Y= EAAYASAAEgIj7vD_BwE" class=3D"ContentPasted0">OSF</a> or <a href=3D"https://zenodo.org/record/5600535#.Y2NxnaSZOUk" class= =3D"ContentPasted0">= Zenodo</a>. I have used OSF since it has a broad scope and allows you to upload projects. It provides a prep= rint DOI, which remains the same if you update the preprint at a later stag= e. Also, you can link the DOI of the final peer-reviewed version of your pa= per. Zenodo can also be used for projects (data+paper), but every update will create a new DOI.<o:p class= =3D"ContentPasted0"> </o:p> <o:p class=3D"Conten= tPasted0"> </o:p> Q1a How do you regard the status of preprints?<o:p class=3D"Content= Pasted0"> </o:p> Q1b Is it a missed opportunity if one decides not to go for a peer-= review process of a preprint?<o:p class=3D"ContentPasted0"> </o:p></sp= an> <o:p class=3D"Conten= tPasted0"> </o:p> Another new development is open community-driven peer review procedure= s. I found examples in other fields; see below. <o:p class=3D"ContentPasted0"> </o:p> <o:p class=3D"Conten= tPasted0"> </o:p> Q2a Do you know of examples of community-driven peer review in hear= ing sciences? <o:p class=3D"ContentPasted0"> </o:p> Q2b Can you recommend a community-driven journal?<o:p class=3D"Cont= entPasted0"> </o:p> <o:p class=3D"Conten= tPasted0"> </o:p> Many scientists have responded to the new transparent consultative pee= r-review procedure by eLife (https://elifesciences.org/about/peer-review). = This might be an exciting venue for those looking for new ways of peer review. However, the charges amount to $2000.= The charges for open access can be enormous (Nature $7000?) and a barrier = for early career researchers.<o:p class=3D"ContentPasted0"> </o:p></sp= an> <o:p class=3D"Conten= tPasted0"> </o:p> So far, I have found the following examples of community journal/peer = review processes:<o:p class=3D"ContentPasted0"> </o:p> <o:p class=3D"Conten= tPasted0"> </o:p> Pubpeer (The PubPeer Foundati= on is a California-registered public-benefit corporation with 5= 01(c)(3) nonprofit status in the United States. The overarching goal of the= Foundation is to improve the quality of scientific research by enabling innovative approaches for community int= eraction. The bylaws of the Foundation establish pubpeer.com as a service r= un for the benefit of its readers and commenters, who create its content. O= ur current focus is maintaining and developing the PubPeer onlin= e platform for post-publication peer review. https://pubpeer.com/static/about_)<o:p class=3D"ContentPasted0"> </o:p> <o:p class=3D"Conten= tPasted0"> </o:p> Here you can find our preprint on that platform<o:p class=3D"ContentPa= sted0"> </o:p> https://pubpeer.com/publications/AE2235B5F9F35577B977F87F9834B8 <o:p class=3D"ContentPasted0"> </o:p> It looks like an easy platform to use. It can be used for creating spe= cial issues/collections (see https://pubpeer.com/publications/peeriodicals)= . At the start, I had trouble registering using my name/institution. An anonymous account was created quickly. Curre= ntly, PubPeer is used for post-publication review. I heard that in other di= sciplines, Pubpeer is used to flag suspicious publications (read fraud). <o:p class=3D"ContentPasted0"> </o:p> <o:p class=3D"Conten= tPasted0"> </o:p> Another exciting example is ReviewCommons (<span lang=3D"EN= -US" style=3D"font-family:Lora;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman&q= uot;;mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;color:#2D2D2D;background:white;mso-ansi= -language:EN-US" class=3D"ContentPasted0">Review Commons&n= bsp;provides authors with a Refereed Preprint, which includes the authors=92 manuscript, reports from a single = round of peer review and the authors=92 response. These Refereed Preprints = are transferred on the author=92s behalf to bioRxiv. The most recently-comp= leted Review Commons peer-reviews are listed below, with the most recently posted reviews at the top<= span lang=3D"EN-US" style=3D"font-family:Lora;color:#2D2D2D;background:whit= e;mso-ansi-language:EN-US" class=3D"ContentPasted0">. <a href=3D"https://www.reviewcommons.org/authors/" class=3D"ContentP= asted0">https://www.= reviewcommons.org/authors/</a>)<o:p class=3D"ContentPasted0">&n= bsp;</o:p> Unfortunately, auditory sciences and audiology are not within the scop= e of the peer-review initiative.<o:p class=3D"ContentPasted0"> </o:p><= /span> <o:p class=3D"Conten= tPasted0"> </o:p> The last example I know of is NBDT (NBDT is a community journal. If your handling editor= sees it as in-scope it is appropriate. Editors are instructed to only hand= le papers that they consider running as a journal club paper for their own = lab <a href=3D"https://nbdt.scholasticahq.com/for-authors" class=3D"Cont= entPasted0">https://= nbdt.scholasticahq.com/for-authors</a>). It=92s interesting to see their procedures, including =93Can you propose reviewers? Short answer: no. Long answe= r: we did our own statistical analysis on a private dataset and have conclu= ded that it produces huge undesirable biases without leading to better reviews.=94<o:p class=3D"ContentPasted0"> <= /o:p> <div style=3D"mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid w= indowtext 1.0pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext .75pt;padding:0cm 0c= m 1.0pt 0cm"> <o:p class=3D"Conten= tPasted0"> </o:p> </div> <o:p class=3D"Conten= tPasted0"> </o:p> The Carbon Footprint of Hearing Healthcare<o:p class=3D"ContentPasted0= "> </o:p> <o:p class=3D"Conten= tPasted0"> </o:p> With Jan de Laat, I have just written a perspective paper/blog about the Carbon Footprint of Hearing Healthcare (see version 2= , Preprint DOI <a href=3D"https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/3sj5u" class=3D"ContentPa= sted0">10.31219/osf.= io/3sj5u</a>). The hearing tracker will publish the content today/tomorrow as a blog. So far, we have extract= ed information from <a href=3D"https://www.pwc.com/sk/en/environmental-social-and-corpor= ate-governance-esg/esg-reporting.html" class=3D"ContentPasted0">ESG reports</a> and our contacts within the hearing healthcare industry. Ideally, we would= like to organize a community-driven review process to collect comments fro= m engineers, industry, sustainability officers, authors from ESG reports, a= nd scientists.<o:p class=3D"ContentPasted0"> </o:p> <o:p class=3D"Conten= tPasted0"> </o:p> Q3a What would be a suitable platform to organize and publish a com= munity-driven review process of a perspective paper about carbon footprint = in hearing healthcare? <o:p class=3D"ContentPasted0"> </o:p> <o:p class=3D"Conten= tPasted0"> </o:p> Another ambition could be to create a carbon footprint tracker of hear= ing healthcare by annually updating table 1 from the preprint, including an= assessment of whether climate ambitions by industry were updated and achieved.<o:p class=3D"ContentPasted0"> = </o:p> <o:p class=3D"Conten= tPasted0"> </o:p> Q3b What would be a suitable approach to annually monitor the carbo= n footprint of the hearing healthcare industry? (Maybe not peer-reviewed?)<o:p class=3D"ContentPasted0">=  </o:p> <o:p class=3D"Conten= tPasted0"> </o:p> Please let me know what you think is the best community journal for au= ditory sciences. Don't hesitate to let us know if you believe opinion piece= s shouldn=92t get into the review process. For me publishing this perspective paper is a low-risk experiment. If it g= oes well, I will consider submitting an original research manuscript.<o:p c= lass=3D"ContentPasted0"> </o:p> <o:p class=3D"Conten= tPasted0"> </o:p> Thank you for your time. I am looking forward to your responses and ad= vice.<o:p class=3D"ContentPasted0"> </o:p> <o:p class=3D"Conten= tPasted0"> </o:p> Best regards,<o:p class=3D"ContentPasted0"> </o:p> Jan-Willem Wasmann <o:p class=3D"ContentPasted0"> </o:p> </div> De informa= tie in dit bericht is uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde. Aan dit be= richt en de bijlagen kunnen geen rechten worden ontleend. Heeft u deze e-ma= il onbedoeld ontvangen? Dan verzoeken wij u het te vernietigen en de afzender te informeren. Openbaar maken, kop= i=EBren en verspreiden van deze e-mail of informatie uit deze e-mail is all= een toegestaan met voorafgaande schriftelijke toestemming van de afzender. = Het Radboudumc staat geregistreerd bij de Kamer van Koophandel in het handelsregister onder nummer 80262783.<= br> The content of this message is intended solely for the addressee. No rights= can be derived from this message or its attachments. If you are not the in= tended recipient, we kindly request you to delete the message and inform th= e sender. It is strictly prohibited to disclose, copy or distribute this email or the information inside it, w= ithout a written consent from the sender. Radboud university medical center= is registered with the Dutch Chamber of Commerce trade register with numbe= r 80262783. </body> </html> --_000_AM9PR09MB5203FF254F33363DBF23EB06DF389AM9PR09MB5203eurp_--

This message came from the mail archive
src/postings/2022/
maintained by:

DAn Ellis <dpwe@ee.columbia.edu>
Electrical Engineering Dept., Columbia University