2011 CrossRef Annual Member Meeting
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
The Charles Hotel
Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
Twitter Hashtag: #crossref11
Agenda
| 8:30-10:00 | Registration and Breakfast |
| 9:00-9:45 | Corporate Annual Meeting for Members and Board Election |
| Linda Beebe, Chair, Board of Directors | |
| Ian Bannerman, Treasurer, Board of Directors | |
| Ed Pentz, Executive Director | |
| 10:00-10:20 | Main Open Meeting |
| Introduction and CrossRef Overview, Ed Pentz, Executive Director - Presentation |
|
| - Presentation | |
| - Video Recording | |
| 10:20-10:40 | System Update |
| Chuck Koscher, Director of Technology | |
| - Presentation | |
| - Video Recording | |
| 10:40-11:00 | Strategic Initiatives Update |
| Geoff Bilder, Director of Strategic Initiatives | |
| 11:00-11:30 | Break |
| 11:30-11:45 | CrossRef Member Obligations (including Display Guidelines) |
Carol Anne Meyer, Business Development and Marketing |
|
| - Presentation | |
| - Video Recording | |
| 11:45-12:15 | CrossMark Update |
| Evan Owens, American Institute of Physics | |
| - Presentation | |
| - Video Recording | |
| Kirsty Meddings, Product Manager | |
| - Presentation | |
| - Video Recording | |
| 12:15-12:45 | ORCID Update |
| Howard Ratner, Nature Publishing Group | |
| - Presentation | |
| - Video Recording | |
| 12:45-13:15 | DataCite: the Perfect Complement to CrossRef |
| James Mullins, Purdue University | |
| Just as CrossRef provides a digital object identifier to scholarly articles, DataCite, as an international collaboration, provides digital object identifiers to data sets, including those that contributed to the published research article. This presentation will provide the mission, vision, challenges, and latest advances of DataCite. | |
| - Presentation | |
| - Video Recording | |
| 13:15-14:15 | Lunch |
| 14:15-15:15 | Sex and the Scientific Publisher: How Journals and Journalists Collude (despite their best intentions) to Mislead the Public |
Ellen Ruppel Shell, Boston University Center for Science & Medical Journalism |
|
| Publication bias is the tendency of researchers, editors, and pharmaceutical companies to handle the reporting of experimental results that are positive (i.e. showing a statistically significant finding) differently from results that are negative (i.e. supporting the null hypothesis) or inconclusive, leading to bias in the scientific literature overall. Indeed, statistically significant results are three times more likely to be published than papers affirming a null result. Such bias occurs despite the fact that studies with significant results do not appear to be of superior design than are studies with a null result. There is evidence that some investigators actually decline to seek publication due to their anticipation that scientific publishers will not be interested in null results--the so-called "file drawer" effect. Complicating matters still further is that journalists tend to over-report positive scientific findings, with the result that the public is too often mislead as to the purpose, scope and consequences of a given scientific study. This talk takes a look at this problem through the lens of one of the most confusing--and least understood--issues of our time, the significance of innate cognitive differences between genders. | |
| - Presentation | |
| - Video Recording | |
| 15:15-15:45 | The Persistence of Error: A Study of Retracted Articles on the Internet |
| Phil Davis, Publishing Consultant | |
| Article retraction is an attempt to correct the scientific record. In practice, readers may be unaware that an article has been retracted and cite it for years as a valid study. Scientific authors have little incentive to consult the publisher’s website or a literature index for the current status of each cited reference. In addition, copies of retracted articles persist, in many versions, on public websites beyond the control of the publisher. In this talk, I report on a study to locate versions of retracted articles on the public Internet as well as in the personal collections of Mendeley users. I discuss how a series of services could be designed to more effectively alert readers on the updated status of scientific articles. | |
| - Presentation | |
| - Video Recording | |
| 15:45-16:15 | Break |
| 16:15-16:45 | Results from global journal editor survey on detecting plagiarism |
| Helen (Y.H) ZHANG, JZUS (Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE) | |
| 1. How do journal editors use CrossCheck? 2. How do journal editors respond to the CrossCheck similarity report? 3. What are the attitudes of journal editors toward typical problems that may often be encountered in different disciplines and different countries? 4. What is the difference between the Anglophone and non-Anglophone journals in dealing with plagiarism? 5. A few interesting questions that came up in our survey. |
|
| 16:45-17:15 | The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: What Retractions Tell Us About Scientific Transparency |
| Ivan Oransky, Retraction Watch | |
Science is supposed to be self-correcting, and retractions are the most draconian of efforts to keep the scientific record up to date. They've also risen dramatically in the past decade. But there is wide variation in how journals approach the withdrawals of papers. Some of those approaches raise serious questions about the transparency with which science would like to be linked. Here's a look at a number of case studies from more than a year of Retraction Watch, as well as some suggestions for improving retraction practices. |
|
| - Presentation | |
| - Video Recording | |
| 17:15-17:30 | Wrap up |
| 17:30-18:30 | Cocktail Reception |
Updated December 21, 2011
