Re: [AUDITORY] preprints, community journals, and the carbon footprint of hearing healthcare (LEONARDO GABRIELLI )

Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] preprints, community journals, and the carbon footprint of hearing healthcare From: LEONARDO GABRIELLI <l.gabrielli@xxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2022 11:50:39 +0000 --_000_AM6PR04MB59416C814F1EA5148748EF34A93C9AM6PR04MB5941eurp_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Jan-Willem. Regarding your carbon footprint paper, which is very appreciated, I'd like = to spin a couple of questions. I have recently written a paper dealing with sustainability in the Internet= of Sounds together with Luca Turchet. Other people have written papers in = their related territory, but I suspect that the strategies are always the s= ame, since we are dealing with the carbon footprint of electronics devices,= no matter if you deal with auditory health, internet of things, consumer d= evices of some sort, etc. So the strategies are: reduce battery usage, find new energy storage soluti= ons, reuse devices, extend lifetime. Therefore, it may seem plausible that we all join efforts and build one big= initiative (something like a "sustainable electronic devices" initiative, = for instance). On the other hand, in Science you can never embrace a too br= oad objective, otherwise there's the risk of saying nothing meaningful, or = at least, of not being expert enough about a too broad domain. I feel that = our paper was already a bit too broad in its target, so I am aware that som= e shortcomings arise when you try to factor too many disciplines together. What do you think about this? Where's a good balance between a joint effort= between multiple disciplines and being able to provide expertise about our= own specific domain? Another comment that I have. Carbon footprint is relatively easy to measure= and is urgent to reduce due to global warming. However, it draws our whole= attention, while other less measurable issues are taken out of the picture= . Among these I'd say ecotoxicity is important (e.g. how wastes are correct= ly disposed, or how plants pollute during production) and the social burden= of mass production in underdeveloped countries, where workers are more exp= osed to dangers and factories are more polluting/less regulated. Thank you for your inputs. BTW: here's the paper https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Luca-Turchet/pub= lication/362066951_Towards_a_Sustainable_Internet_of_Sounds/links/62d4ffdaf= d347a451bc73164/Towards-a-Sustainable-Internet-of-Sounds.pdf ________________________________ From: AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception <AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx>= on behalf of Wasmann, Jan-Willem <Jan-Willem.Wasmann@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2022 12:16 PM To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx <AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx> Subject: [AUDITORY] preprints, community journals, and the carbon footprint= of hearing healthcare 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_AM6PR04MB59416C814F1EA5148748EF34A93C9AM6PR04MB5941eurp_ 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);" class=3D"elementToProof"> Dear Jan-Willem.</div> <div style=3D"font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size= : 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class=3D"elementToProof"> </div> <div style=3D"font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size= : 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class=3D"elementToProof"> Regarding your carbon footprint paper, which is very appreciated, I'd like = to spin a couple of questions.</div> <div style=3D"font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size= : 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class=3D"elementToProof"> I have recently written a paper dealing with sustainability in the Int= ernet of Sounds together with Luca Turchet. Other people have written paper= s in their related territory, but I suspect that the strategies are always = the same, since we are dealing with the carbon footprint of electronics devices, no matter if you deal with audito= ry health, internet of things, consumer devices of some sort, etc.</div> <div style=3D"font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size= : 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class=3D"elementToProof"> So the strategies are: reduce battery usage, find new energy storage soluti= ons, reuse devices, extend lifetime. </div> <div style=3D"font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size= : 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class=3D"elementToProof"> Therefore, it may seem plausible that we all join efforts and build one big= initiative (something like a "sustainable electronic devices" in= itiative, for instance). On the other hand, in Science you can never embrac= e a too broad objective, otherwise there's the risk of saying nothing meaningful, or at least, of not being expert en= ough about a too broad domain. I feel that our paper was already a bit too = broad in its target, so I am aware that some shortcomings arise when you tr= y to factor too many disciplines together.</div> <div style=3D"font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size= : 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class=3D"elementToProof"> What do you think about this? Where's a good balance between a joint effort= between multiple disciplines and being able to provide expertise about our= own specific domain?</div> <div style=3D"font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size= : 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class=3D"elementToProof"> </div> <div style=3D"font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size= : 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class=3D"elementToProof"> Another comment that I have. Carbon footprint is relatively easy to measure= and is urgent to reduce due to global warming. However, it draws our whole= attention, while other less measurable issues are taken out of the picture= . Among these I'd say ecotoxicity is important (e.g. how wastes are correctly disposed, or how plants pollut= e during production) and the social burden of mass production in underdevel= oped countries, where workers are more exposed to dangers and factories are= more polluting/less regulated. </div> <div style=3D"font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size= : 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class=3D"elementToProof"> </div> <div style=3D"font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size= : 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class=3D"elementToProof"> Thank you for your inputs.</div> <div style=3D"font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size= : 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class=3D"elementToProof"> </div> <div style=3D"font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size= : 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class=3D"elementToProof ContentPasted0"> BTW: here's the paper <a href=3D"https://www.researchgate.net/profile/= Luca-Turchet/publication/362066951_Towards_a_Sustainable_Internet_of_Sounds= /links/62d4ffdafd347a451bc73164/Towards-a-Sustainable-Internet-of-Sounds.pd= f" id=3D"LPlnk703313">https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Luca-Turchet/pub= lication/362066951_Towards_a_Sustainable_Internet_of_Sounds/links/62d4ffdaf= d347a451bc73164/Towards-a-Sustainable-Internet-of-Sounds.pdf</a></div> <div style=3D"font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size= : 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class=3D"elementToProof"> </div> <div id=3D"appendonsend"></div> <hr style=3D"display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex=3D"-1"> <div id=3D"divRplyFwdMsg" dir=3D"ltr">From: AUDITORY - Research i= n Auditory Perception <AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of Wasmann= , Jan-Willem <Jan-Willem.Wasmann@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2022 12:16 PM To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx <AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx> Subject: [AUDITORY] preprints, community journals, and the carbon fo= otprint of hearing healthcare <div> </div> </div> <style type=3D"text/css" style=3D"display:none">  </style> <div dir=3D"ltr"> <div class=3D"x_elementToProof" style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetic= a,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; color:rgb(0,0,0); background-color:rgb(255,25= 5,255)"> Dear list, = Via this thread,= I=92d like to touch upon preprints, community journals, and the carbon foo= tprint of hearing healthcare. If you are in a hurry, please skip this messa= ge TLDR. Otherwise, it would be great to tap into your collective wisdom.    In recent years,= preprints have become increasingly popular to increase open access. Some p= reprints get cited a lot (e.g., <a href=3D"https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.04.463034= v2.abstract" class=3D"x_ContentPasted0">htt= ps://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.04.463034v2.abstract</a= > > 300 times). And especially in AI, some preprints will probably never = get peer-reviewed. A well-known example is:   Saon G, Kurata G= , Sercu T, Audhkhasi K, Thomas S, Dimitriadis D, et al. English Conversatio= nal Telephone Speech Recognition by Humans and Machines. ArXiv170302136 Cs = (2017). Available online at: http://arxiv.org/ abs/1703.02136    There are multip= le platforms to use. The most well-known is <a href=3D"https://www.biorxiv.org/" class=3D"x_ContentPasted0"><spa= n lang=3D"EN-US" style=3D"">Biorxiv</a> or <a href=3D"https://arxiv.org/" class=3D"x_ContentPasted0">Arxiv</a>. But also <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"x_ContentPasted0">OSF</a> or <a href=3D"https://zenodo.org/record/5600535#.Y2NxnaSZOUk" class= =3D"x_ContentPasted0">Zenodo</a><spa= n lang=3D"EN-US" class=3D"x_ContentPasted0" style=3D"">. I have used OSF si= nce it has a broad scope and allows you to upload projects. It provides 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 pee= r-reviewed version of your paper. Zenodo can also be used for projects (dat= a+paper), but every update will create a new DOI.    Q1a How do yo= u regard the status of preprints?  Q1b Is it a m= issed opportunity if one decides not to go for a peer-review process of a p= reprint?    Another new deve= lopment is open community-driven peer review procedures. I found examples i= n other fields; see below.     Q2a Do you kn= ow of examples of community-driven peer review in hearing sciences?  <= /span> Q2b Can you r= ecommend a community-driven journal?    Many scientists = have responded to the new transparent consultative peer-review procedure by= eLife (https://elifesciences.org/about/peer-review). This might be an exci= ting 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 rese= archers.    So far, I have f= ound the following examples of community journal/peer review processes:&nbs= p;   Pubpeer (= The PubP= eer Foundation is a C= alifornia-registered public-benefit corporation with 501(c)(3) nonprofit st= atus in the United States. The overarching goal of the Foundation is to imp= rove the quality of scientific research by enabling innovative approaches for community interaction. The bylaws of= the Foundation establish pubpeer.com as a service run for the benefit of i= ts readers and commenters, who create its content. Our current focus is mai= ntaining and developing the PubPeer&= nbsp;online platform for post-publication peer review. https://pu= bpeer.com/static/about_) </span= >   Here you can fin= d 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/collectio= ns (see https://pubpeer.com/publications/peeriodicals). At the start, I had= trouble registering using my name/institution. An anonymous account was created quickly. Currently, PubPeer is used for p= ost-publication review. I heard that in other disciplines, Pubpeer is used = to flag suspicious publications (read fraud).     Another exciting= example is ReviewCommons (Revi= ew Commons <spa= n lang=3D"EN-US" class=3D"x_ContentPasted0" style=3D"">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. T= hese Refereed Preprints are transferred on the author=92s behalf to bioRxiv= . The most recently-completed Review Commons peer-reviews are listed below, with the most recently posted reviews at th= e top. <a href=3D"https://www.reviewcommons.org/authors/" class=3D"x_Conten= tPasted0">https://www.reviewcommons.org/aut= hors/</a>= )  Unfortunately, a= uditory 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 handling edit= or sees it as in-scope it is appropriate. Editors are instructed to only ha= ndle papers that they consider running as a journal club paper for their ow= n lab <a href=3D"https://nbdt.scholasticahq.com/for-authors" class=3D"x_Co= ntentPasted0">https://nbdt.scholasticahq.co= m/for-authors</a>). It=92s interesting to see their procedures, including =93Can you propose reviewers?&= nbsp;Short answer: no. Long answer: we did our own statistical analysis on = a private dataset and have concluded that it produces huge undesirable bias= es without leading to better reviews.=94  <div style=3D"border:none; border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding:0c= m 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">   </div>   The Carbon Footp= rint of Hearing Healthcare    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"x_ContentPasted0= ">10.31219/osf.io/3sj5u</a>). The hearing tracker wi= ll publish the content today/tomorrow as a blog. So far, we have extracted information from <a href=3D"https://www.p= wc.com/sk/en/environmental-social-and-corporate-governance-esg/esg-reportin= g.html" class=3D"x_ContentPasted0">ESG repo= rts</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.    Q3a What woul= d be a suitable platform to organize and publish a community-driven review = process of a perspective paper about carbon footprint in hearing healthcare= ?     Another ambition= could be to create a carbon footprint tracker of hearing healthcare by ann= ually updating table 1 from the preprint, including an assessment of whethe= r climate ambitions by industry were updated and achieved.    Q3b What woul= d be a suitable approach to annually monitor the carbon footprint of the he= aring healthcare industry? (Mayb= e not peer-reviewed?)    Please let me kn= ow what you think is the best community journal for auditory sciences. Don'= t hesitate to let us know if you believe opinion pieces shouldn=92t get int= o the review process. For me publishing this perspective paper is a low-risk experiment. If it goes well, I will c= onsider submitting an original research manuscript.    Thank you for yo= ur time. I am looking forward to your responses and advice. </p= >   Best regards,&nb= sp; Jan-Willem Wasma= nn   </div> De inform= atie in dit bericht is uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde. Aan dit b= ericht en de bijlagen kunnen geen rechten worden ontleend. Heeft u deze e-m= ail 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. </div> </body> </html> --_000_AM6PR04MB59416C814F1EA5148748EF34A93C9AM6PR04MB5941eurp_--

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

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