The author expression ​of concern (AEOC): A proposed formal mechanism to allow authors' legitimate concerns to be heard, and their rights and voices to be respected.

IF 2.8 1区 哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-19 DOI:10.1080/08989621.2023.2258625
Jaime A Teixeira da Silva, Yuki Yamada
{"title":"The author expression ​of concern (AEOC): A proposed formal mechanism to allow authors' legitimate concerns to be heard, and their rights and voices to be respected.","authors":"Jaime A Teixeira da Silva, Yuki Yamada","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2258625","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We propose a type of DOI-based manuscript, the author expression of concern (AEOC), allowing authors to formally publish their concerns about legitimate procedural problems associated with editors, reviewers, journals or publishers. Managed by a neutral third-party arbitrator or moderator, AEOCs would be limited in size and subjected to fair but strict screening of presented evidence. When an AEOC is approved for publication by an arbitrator, the criticized party would also need to formally respond within a reasonable period, as a \"letter to the author(s)\", which is also screened by the same arbitrator. Expanding the range of publishing options for authors, as AEOCs, would allow them to voice their legitimate concerns related to a journal's procedures in a formalized format. Although implementation might be challenging at first, it could demonstrate the fairness of editorial policies and democratize the publication process by taking authors' legitimate expressions of discontent related to procedure, and their rights of expression into account, elevating them to a formal article status, allowing for a more balanced two-way system of accountability and openness. Author empowerment that matches editorial and publisher empowerment is essential for a journal to truly claim to be fair, just and accountable.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"188-192"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2258625","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We propose a type of DOI-based manuscript, the author expression of concern (AEOC), allowing authors to formally publish their concerns about legitimate procedural problems associated with editors, reviewers, journals or publishers. Managed by a neutral third-party arbitrator or moderator, AEOCs would be limited in size and subjected to fair but strict screening of presented evidence. When an AEOC is approved for publication by an arbitrator, the criticized party would also need to formally respond within a reasonable period, as a "letter to the author(s)", which is also screened by the same arbitrator. Expanding the range of publishing options for authors, as AEOCs, would allow them to voice their legitimate concerns related to a journal's procedures in a formalized format. Although implementation might be challenging at first, it could demonstrate the fairness of editorial policies and democratize the publication process by taking authors' legitimate expressions of discontent related to procedure, and their rights of expression into account, elevating them to a formal article status, allowing for a more balanced two-way system of accountability and openness. Author empowerment that matches editorial and publisher empowerment is essential for a journal to truly claim to be fair, just and accountable.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
作者表达​关注(AEOC):一种拟议的正式机制,允许作者的合法关注得到倾听,他们的权利和声音得到尊重。
我们提出了一种基于DOI的手稿,即作者关注表达(AEOC),允许作者正式发表他们对与编辑、审稿人、期刊或出版商相关的合法程序问题的关注。AEOC由中立的第三方仲裁员或主持人管理,其规模将受到限制,并对提交的证据进行公平但严格的筛选。当仲裁员批准公布AEOC时,被批评的一方还需要在合理期限内以“致提交人的信”的形式正式回应,该信也由同一仲裁员筛选。扩大作者作为AEOC的出版选择范围,将使他们能够以正式的形式表达他们对期刊程序的合理担忧。尽管实施一开始可能具有挑战性,但它可以证明编辑政策的公平性,并通过考虑作者对与程序有关的不满的合法表达及其表达权,使出版过程民主化,将他们提升到正式的文章地位,从而实现更平衡的双向问责和公开制度。与编辑和出版商授权相匹配的作者授权对于期刊真正声称公平、公正和负责任至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
14.70%
发文量
49
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results. The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.
期刊最新文献
Incorporating implicit bias into research integrity education: Response to 'Why and how to incorporate issues of race/ethnicity and gender in research integrity education'. The core epistemic responsibilities of universities: Results from a Delphi study. Extent of publishing in predatory journals by academics in higher education institutions in Zimbabwe: A case study of a university. Defining "recklessness" in research misconduct proceedings. Are there accurate and legitimate ways to machine-quantify predatoriness, or an urgent need for an automated online tool?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1