[學習][證照][Web of Science Academy] 學術相關系列課程
獻慶原本在Web of Science平台上整理資料，結果意外看到"Web of Science Academy"，就近去參觀一下。
發現裡面有不少課程。
什麼時候連這種學術資料庫都要提供線上課程了，太神奇了。
課程內容
Course Catalog
Research Integrity
Learn about research integrity within academic publishing
1. Good Citation Behavior
2. An Introduction to Ethical Publishing Behavior
Scholarly peer review
Learn about peer reviewing for scholarly journals
1. An Introduction to Peer Review
2. Reviewing in the Sciences
3. Reviewing in the Humanities
Peer reviewing in practice for learners
Learn how to peer review by co-reviewing together with a mentor
1. Co-reviewing with a mentor (no assignment)
2. Co-reviewing with a mentor (with assignment)
Peer reviewing in practice for mentors
Learn how to mentor junior colleagues in peer review through co-reviewing
1. Mentoring in peer review (no assignment)
2. Mentoring in peer review (with assignment)
 |
| Web of Science Academy課程。截圖時間: 2024-02-21。網址: https://webofscienceacademy.clarivate.com |
有趣的地方
Good Citation Behavior課程
有講到一些關鍵點
例如: 作者(author)投稿文章後，在審稿階段碰到評審(reviewer)或編輯(editor)要求增加某些參考資料(citation)。
這件事情是可以的。但前提是增加的參考資料需與投稿文章相關。
如果不相關，作者可以找主編(Editor in chief)投訴。
An Introduction to Ethical Publishing Behavior課程
做研究發論文要老實(正式一點的說法是維持學術倫理行為(maintain ethical behavior))，最主要有兩個理由:
1. 保持信任並維護學術出版記錄的完整性 (To maintain trust and uphold the integrity of the scholarly publication record.)。
2. 盡量減少資源浪費 (To minimize waste of resources.)。
提供兩個案例
案例1: Wakefield 關於 MMR 疫苗和自閉症的論文
近代史上最著名的撤稿之一可能是 Wakefield 等人 1998 年發表的論文，該論文聲稱 MMR 疫苗與兒童自閉症之間存在關聯 [1]。 2004 年，十位作者發表了撤稿聲明，但該論文直到 2010 年才完全撤回並從出版記錄中刪除，因為調查發現該研究中進行的某些程序缺乏倫理委員會的批准，而 Wakefield 無法聲明沒有財務利益衝突，在報告如何招募參與者進行研究時存在不誠實，以及方法上偏離標準做法。
自使用大型數據集以來已經進行了許多研究，但尚未發現 MMR 疫苗與自閉症之間的關聯。不幸的是，在論文首次發表二十年後，對 MMR 疫苗的猶豫仍然是一個問題，麻疹疫情也變得更加普遍，例如 2019 年薩摩亞的麻疹疫情導致 83 人死亡，其中大部分是五歲以下兒童 [2]。
REF:
案例2: Hwang 關於克隆人類胚胎幹細胞的論文
最近在科學界引起轟動的另一個案例是 Hwang 在 2004 年和 2005 年發表的論文 [1, 2]，聲稱從克隆人類胚胎中提取幹細胞並創建了患者特異性幹細胞系。在調查發現數據偽造以及在如何獲得捐贈卵子方面違反道德行為後，這兩篇論文均被撤回。
不幸的是，研究人員已經花費了大量的研究經費和時間試圖重現基於捏造數據的研究結果。
“在2004和2005年，日本滋賀醫科大學的研究員 Ryuzo Torii 投入了大量的研究經費、時間和猴蛋，試圖在非人類靈長類動物身上重現 Hwang 的技術。” - Hwang 被定罪，但不是欺詐罪 | 自然 [3]
REF:
有關撤回論文以及如何舉報不當行為的更多信息，請訪問 Retraction Watch 和 COPE。撤稿觀察擁有撤回論文的檔案，並提供有關如何發現和處理不當行為的資訊。 COPE (出版道德委員會)提供指南、案例研究和資源，其中提供瞭如果您懷疑存在不當行為該怎麼辦的資訊。
REF:
Retraction Watch: https://retractionwatch.com/
An Introduction to Peer Review課程
裡面有提到使用指導(guidelines)跟樣板(template)來進行review的好處。
- Review in a more consistent and fair way
- Limit unconscious biases towards the authors
- Remember everything you should check for in a manuscript
樣板提供如下:
 |
| WoS Academy Review Guidelines。截圖時間: 2024-02-22。 |
 |
| WoS Academy Review Template。截圖時間: 2024-02-22。 |
另外也有講
如何開始接受審稿邀請其中一個方式是，與您的主管共同審查既然您知道參與同儕審查如何使您成為更好的研究人員，您可能想知道早期職業研究人員如何參與評審。最簡單的方法是與您的博士生導師或博士後顧問共同評審。他們在這裡接受邀請並與您一起進行審核。他們應該讓編輯知道並獲得事先批准才能分享評論，他們將是將評論提交回期刊的人。在共同審查幾次後，當他們太忙而無法自己接受邀請時，他們可能會認為您適合的審閱任務，而建議您作為替代審查者。
原文:
How to start receiving invitation to reviewCo-review with your supervisorNow that you know how being involved with peer review can make you a better researcher, you might wonder how early career researchers can get into reviewing. The easiest way is to co-review with your PhD supervisor or postdoc advisor. This is where they accept an invitation and work with you on the review. They should let the editor know and get prior approval to share the review and they will be the ones submitting the review back to the journal. After having co-reviewed a few times they might pass on review assignments they think you are suitable for when they are too busy to accept an invitation themselves and instead suggest you as a replacement reviewer.
為什麼獻慶要講共同審查(Co-review)這件事
好處是，可以光明正大地訓練剛加入的研究新手(例如: 碩士生、博士生)。也可以把貢獻名正言順地給他們，而不是讓他們做白工，努力了一大堆後，貢獻還是零，沒人知道事情是他們幹的。
有些教授，收到審查邀請(review invitation)後，自己沒時間審，就交給博士後研究員、博士班學生，有些更直接交給碩士班學生。讓人做白工就算了，審查的品質也是一團糟。畢竟研究新手哪裡知道審文章的方法。
而當我們的腳色是學生或低階人員時，當高階人員要我們幫他審文章時，也可以跟高階人員提出共同審查要求。
例如: 教授要求博士後或博士班學生幫他審文章時，博士後或博士班學生可以提出以共同審查的方式來進行，這樣既可以努力審文章，也可以得到公認的貢獻。而不是當個出免費勞動力的"無名仔"。
當年獻慶在博士班學生時期就幫老師審文章，當時還不知道"共同審查(Co-review)"這檔事，也許是學術界還沒發展好這套，也沒找到現在這些審稿相關的教學資料。當時，就審了文章，累積點經驗，不過沒有名，免費勞動力。
現在有這套模式的話，教授就可以大方一點，帶新人，名正言順，又不會讓學生覺得"在吃他"，雙贏!
PS: 雖然說是共同審查(Co-review)是讓老手有機會去帶新手，但實務上，老手通常沒空帶，所以獻慶建議新手自己上網看這些學術課程，自立自強。
現在有這些學術課程，對老手而言，也是好事。至少老手可以請新手自己去看課程。內容通常都會比老手隨便講一下，還要多很多。也比較完整。
Reviewing in the Sciences課程
有提到如何給出建設性的回饋。可以使用S.E.E.方法。
Constructive feedback using the S.E.E. method
The S.E.E. principle of essay writing is a helpful guide for your review comments. It stands for Statement, Explain, Example. It suggests how you can provides enough detail in each of your major and minor points to the authors so that they can easily address them in a revision.
Statement: Clearly state what and where the issue is.
Explain: Explain why it is an issue.
Example: Provide an example with evidence to support your statement, and where possible, provide a possible solution.
This is a good way to ensure that you provide helpful and constructive critique.
還給出S.E.E.方法的例子。
Example comment split into S.E.E.:
Statement: In Table 4, the standard deviation indicates that there was a lot of variance within the data.
Explain: To clarify the relevance and context of this variance
Example: The authors should provide the ranges for descriptive data, in addition to the means and standard deviations.
另外，也給出兩個例子來舉例，如何寫出詳細又清楚的評論。
More examples of how to write detailed clear comments
Example 1:
(模糊評論) "In the results section, the text is unclear about which table it is referring to"
(詳細清楚評論) Would be better written as: "On page 9, paragraph 2, the text refers to table 3 but it mentions the data presented in table 4."
Example 2:
(模糊評論) “The introduction fails to discuss any negative aspects of the current literature”
(詳細清楚評論) It is more constructive if written as: “The introduction should address negative consequences of large caffeine consumption to contrast the purely positive perspective presented”
Reviewing in the Humanities課程
有講自然科學跟社會科學審查的差異性與相似性。讚!
Humanities versus the Sciences
Differences between the Sciences and Humanities
In the Arts and Humanities, and also to some extent the Social Sciences, authors publish their research not just in academic journals but also as books, book chapters, or monographs. In general, publications in the Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences tend to be longer, and therefore researchers in these fields might not publish as often as researchers in the Natural Sciences. This also means that as a reviewer, you might not be asked to review as often but you will often spend more time on each review.
Reviewers in the Humanities, the Arts, and some Social Science fields, are generally not asked to evaluate empirical research results. Instead they might be asked to assess how persuasive an argument is, how original a new theory is, or how well a topic is covered and summarized in a literature review. In some disciplines, it is also more common for researchers to publish in their local language in a local journal instead of trying to reach a global audience. This contributes toward slower citation rates in the Arts, Humanities and some Social Sciences, versus the typical STEM fields (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics).
Double blind peer review is the most common form of peer review for journal articles in the Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences, whereas single blind is more common for monographs and books.
Summary of the main differences between reviewing in the Sciences versus the Humanities
- Type of publication (e.g book chapter or monograph versus empirical research article)
- Length of time spent reviewing and how often you are invited to review
- Type of peer review (e.g double blind versus single blind or open peer review)
- Local language journals are more common for some disciplines
- What reviewers are asked to assess and evaluate (e.g arguments and theories versus empirical methodology and results)
Similarities between the Sciences and Humanities
Even though there are some big differences between the way peer review is conducted between the Sciences and Humanities, there are also many similarities. Most publications regardless of the discipline will be assessed for quality, originality/novelty, and impact.
Mentoring in peer review (no assignment)課程
課程後面的問題，倒是挺有趣的。
Q1: What is considered as co-reviewing?
A1: When a senior and junior researcher review together and where the senior researcher provides feedback and mentoring for learning purposes
Q2: What is ghost reviewing?
A2: When a junior colleague reviews a manuscript and a senior researcher submits it as their own
Q3: What does encouraging and constructive feedback look like?
A3:
1. Offering some comments on what was done well
2. Using professional and polite tone
3. Being honest about what needs to be improved and offering examples of how they can be improved
PS: 原來幫教授審文章，不求名，這件事情被歸類於"ghost reviewing"，如果中文直翻的話，就是"鬼魂審查"。光看這名字，就感覺這不是件好事，所以不管是身為教授還是身為學生，還是避免這種事情發生比較好。
證照
先秀"Good Citation Behavior"證照。方便參考一下證照的版面。
 |
| "Good Citation Behavior"證照。取得時間: 2024-02-20。 |
接著就不秀剩下的N張，版面都一樣。
直接看系統裡面的課程總表就好。
 |
| Web of Science Academy課程總表。截圖時間: 2024-02-27。 |
課程總表的9個課程，有7個都走完了，顯示綠色的"COMPLETED"。
另外2個則是要實做，需要帶人做期刊審查，跟被人帶做期刊審查。這個就隨緣了。所以顯示黃色的"IN PROCESS"。
原本，Web of Science Academye官網有提供社區導師功能，讓系統媒合人員，去完成這兩個實做課程。但看來有些狀況，就關掉了。
總之，就是這樣，到這裡就好，Let it be!
 |
| Web of Science Academye官網一開頭就用黃色告示牌，顯示"The community mentor feature will no longer be supported"，表示"將不再支援社區導師功能"。 |
感想
1.
其實稍微或認真看一下內容，都可以獲得不少"補償"。
大概知道如何處理問題跟避免衝突的方式。
2.
無意間看到些好資料，爽!
相關Po文
[學習][證照][愛思維爾線上學習平台Elsevier Researcher Academy] Editor Webinars及Learning & Content Management系列課程
[學習][證照][愛思維爾線上學習平台Elsevier Researcher Academy] Editor Essentials系列課程
[學習][證照][愛思維爾線上學習平台Elsevier Researcher Academy] Certified Peer Reviewer Course系列課程
https://dream-and-creation.blogspot.com/2023/11/elsevier-researcher-academy.html
[怪事] 愛思維爾線上學習平台Elsevier Researcher Academy系統，發證怪事。
https://dream-and-creation.blogspot.com/2023/10/elsevier-researcher-academy.html
[國際證照][學習] 多快可以拿到國際證照? 3分鐘一張?!
https://dream-and-creation.blogspot.com/2023/08/3.html
[學術研究][教學資源] 愛思維爾線上學習平台Elsevier Researcher Academy介紹
https://dream-and-creation.blogspot.com/2021/06/elsevier-researcher-academy.html
[工業研究] Charge and discharge profiles of repurposed LiFePO4 batteries based on the UL 1974 standard (汰役磷酸鋰鐵電池基於UL1974標準的充放電曲線)
相關連結
Web of Science Academy官網:
https://webofscienceacademy.clarivate.com社群媒體討論平台
如果對該主題有興趣，想要討論，也可以採用以下的社群媒體平台。歡迎討論。
[學習][證照][Web of Science Academy] 學術相關系列課程
獻慶原本在Web of Science平台上整理資料，結果意外看到"Web of Science Academy"，就近去參觀一下。
發現裡面有不少課程。
什麼時候連這種學術資料庫都要提供線上課程了，太神奇了。
更多請看:https://t.co/8Qka5KWxTb
— HsienChing (@HsienChing_) June 14, 2024
如果對該主題有興趣，想要討論，也可以採用以下的社群媒體平台。歡迎討論。
[學習][證照][Web of Science Academy] 學術相關系列課程
— HsienChing (@HsienChing_) June 14, 2024
獻慶原本在Web of Science平台上整理資料，結果意外看到"Web of Science Academy"，就近去參觀一下。
發現裡面有不少課程。
什麼時候連這種學術資料庫都要提供線上課程了，太神奇了。
更多請看:https://t.co/8Qka5KWxTb
留言
張貼留言