AuthorAID

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AuthorAID is the name given to a growing number of web-based activities that provide developmental editing assistance to scientists and researchers from developing countries who wish to prepare scientific articles for publication in peer reviewed journals. Phyllis Freeman^[1] and Anthony Robbins,^[2] co-editors of the Journal of Public Health Policy (JPHP),^[3] first suggested the name and concept in 2004 and published “Closing the ‘publishing gap’ between rich and poor” about AuthorAID on the Science and Development Network(SciDev.Net),^[4] in 2005.^[5]

Development aid programs of international organizations, industrial countries and charitable foundations have invested in strengthening research capacity in developing countries, to help those countries solve their own problems. Scientists from developing countries, however, remain underrepresented as authors in the published scientific literature^[6]. AuthorAID was proposed because unless research results from authors anywhere are available through publication, the full benefit of investment in research is not achieved.

AuthorAID programs propose to engage senior scientists and author’s editors^[7] as mentors to help developing country researchers overcome barriers to publication in scientific journals. The internet connects mentors and authors where it is not possible to have face-to-face contact. Since 2004, AuthorAID experiments have attracted many scientists, editors, and publishers from around the world. These developments are described below, concluding with the status of the AuthorAID concept in early 2008.

Contents 1 The problem 1.1 Causes of under-representation 1.2 The problem as encountered by authors 1.3 The problem as seen by journal editors 1.4 The problem as viewed by publishers 2 AuthorAID’s history 3 References 4 See also 5 Further reading

[edit] The problem

Scientific research is conducted all over the world, and increasingly in developing countries. In an effort to help countries solve problems and speed development, development aid has been invested in research capacity, notably by Sweden^[8] and Canada.^[9] The results of this research must be available through publication to be useful in economic development and to other researchers. Yet only an extremely small fraction of the scientific literature is written by developing world authors, even in fields such as health and environmental studies, where it is universally recognized that the world’s dominant problems manifest themselves in developing regions.^[10]

An analysis, published in ‘‘Science’’ in 2005, of 4061 health-related journals from 1992 to 2001 showed a growing gap in scientific publications between low-income countries and the rest of the world.^[11] Similarly, Athula Sumathipala and her colleagues found under-representation of developing world authors in leading medical journals such as the BMJ, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and JAMA, in 1999 and 2000.^[12]

[edit] Causes of under-representation

There is no single cause of the under-representation of developing world authors. Bias exists on the part of both editors and reviewers who choose what to publish. Frank Gannon,^[13] writing as the editor of EMBO Reports,^[14] pointed out one worrisome source of bias against researchers from developing countries. He suggested that editors and reviewers discriminate “by judging colleagues on their work address” noting that “[t]he address of the first or last authors is not always a neutral piece of information when assessing a paper.”^[15]

Differences in publication priorities between developed and developing countries are not always a sign of bias. The editors of a guide to publishing in the addiction sciences noted that “US research is primarily (and legitimately) oriented towards that country’s own social and economic priorities, which do not necessarily apply to cultures in the developing world. The problem of US dominance is thus not only one of maldistribution of opportunity.”^[16] Some writers, analyzing the issues of science information transfer from a sociolinguistic and sociopolitical standpoint, consider this cultural dominance to reflect an “Anglo-American English language hegemony.”^[17] The problem is further compounded by variations in the quality of the feedback peer reviewers are able to provide about the language and writing, since this advice does not always help to make the writing better.^[18][19]

Writing in English, overwhelmingly the language of scientific publication, constitutes a problem that can make it difficult for non-native English speakers (NNS) to “compete on an equal research basis.”^[20] In the early 1990s Gosden surveyed editors if biology, chemistry and physics journals to identify aspects of manuscripts “which may seriously detract attention from judgment of a paper’s essential merits.” He found that journal editors reported several problems encountered by NNS researchers, including inadequate knowledge of the unwritten “rules of the publication game” (for instance, failure to cite sufficient references to earlier research and unfamiliarity with the argumentation style or scientific level of the journal.)^[21]

The editors of the addiction sciences publishing guide mentioned above noted that international publishing requires technical skill to follow the instructions to authors, and is “an acquired competence in social communication.”^[22] They warned that “if the formalities are not followed, even a study containing strong and original findings might immediately be turned down.” One potential obstacle to acceptance is that “many English-speaking editors and reviewers (in the same way as many French, German, or Swedish speaking editors) will have a rather strict idea of what constitutes good language.”^[23]

[edit] The problem as encountered by authors

Freeman and Robbins, when developing the AuthorAID concept, summarized what they learned about the problems faced by authors in developing countries as:

• Uncertainty about which journals may be suitable for a submission
• Unfamiliarity with editorial conventions
• Persistent pressure to write in English
• Conflicts with collaborators about authorship and author order
• Lack of scientific and statistical tools to analyze data as required by journals
• Editors’ and publishers’ inattention to development problems and developing country topics.^[24]

Editors and other research publication experts might help researchers overcome linguistic challenges and cultural differences, and help them understand the procedural, ethical, and technical intricacies of academic publication. Freeman and Robbins reported that in developing world research institutions there are simply too few editor/scientist mentors (well-published authors or experienced editors) available to assist in disseminating the work of emerging research talent whose findings might be brought to bear on the world’s major problems.^[25]

[edit] The problem as seen by journal editors

Editors of international journals reported to Freeman and Robbins that they sometimes reject submissions from developing country authors even when the content shows merit.^[26] Some noted that despite investment in research capacity in developing countries, many manuscripts reflect inadequate attention to research design and analysis. Conflicting priorities and lack of resources to provide substantive editing have also been discussed as a potential source of bias by members of the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME).^[27] Editors in WAME who work with researchers as well as those who tend the gates at journals noted that the chances of acceptance may be lower for manuscripts needing more rather than less editing work.^[28]

At smaller journals in particular, manuscripts are likely to be rejected if they seem to require more editing than the editors or publisher can afford to provide. Another potential source of bias is perceived narrowness of scope: some editors lament the paucity of submissions sufficiently broad in scope to warrant international dissemination. Manuscripts that report research on a local or regional topic are often rejected by international journals before the editors have carefully scrutinized the research design and data collection.

Journal editors from the Forum of African Medical Editors (FAME)^[29] and the Eastern Mediterranean Association of Medical Editors (EMAME),^[30] both of which are supported by the World Health Organization, report they do most of the editorial tasks themselves, and have little time to assist authors with substantial revisions. Lack of editorial staff to help authors may prolong the review process or result in rejection of manuscripts whose research findings could be applied to solving practical problems or to further research.^[31]

[edit] The problem as viewed by publishers

The tradition of intensive editing in many fields and at many scholarly journals and publishing houses (see academic publishing) has given way to commercial imperatives to produce at lower cost more “content” that can be repackaged and resold or licensed to others to generate additional revenue. To reduce costs, publishers have pushed greater editorial responsibility upon authors. Journals proliferate, but editorial resources are often strained, leading to a propensity to accept manuscripts that require less work. This may impose an additional burden on readers trying to understand the published articles.

Research institutions in wealthy countries have responded to this new publishing environment. Where no in-house editorial service exists, elite institutions often buy editorial help for their researchers from freelance editors or specialized firms. Few, if any, developing world institutions have in-house editorial services or external editors.

In some models of open access publishing the author pays the publisher a “manuscript processing fee,” which contributes little revenue to invest in editing. These fees tend to exclude less affluent authors from the start. However, not all models of open access publishing require financial support from authors, and some open access publishers waive their fees when payment would represent a hardship for authors.

[edit] AuthorAID’s history

The editors of the Journal of Public Health Policy (JPHP) first presented the AuthorAID idea, provisionally named EditAID, at a meeting of the World Federation of Public Health Associations in Brighton, England in April 2004. Public health professionals from the federation’s 69 national national associations expressed interest in the AuthorAID concept. Some wanted to benefit from mentoring and others offered to help scientists with less writing experience.

The second public presentation of AuthorAID took place in Mexico in November 2004 at the Global Forum for Health Research.^[32] This allowed AuthorAID’s developers to reach a group closer to the intended users, i.e., researchers from developing countries plus national and international agencies that invest in research. Robbins and Jerry Spiegel, a Canadian colleague from the Canadian Coalition for Global Health Research,^[33] talked to the forum about the potential benefits of AuthorAID.^[34] In addition, a group of Rockefeller Foundation International Health Research Awardees presented their research to a concurrent ministerial summit.^[35] These researchers, from 25 developing countries, had been helped by JPHP in an AuthorAID-like developmental editing experiment.^[36] In the wake of this experience, interest focussed on the search for more substantial ways to test the AuthorAID concept.

Many editors of US scientific journals were, at the time, engaged in activities to support developing world journal editors and their publications.^[37] For its May 2005 meeting in Atlanta, Georgia, the council of Science Editors (CSE, formerly the Council of Biology Editors) invited a presentation of AuthorAID. Ana Marusic,^[38] co-editor of the Croatian Medical Journal,^[39] organized a special session on AuthorAID. Editors from FAME encouraged CSE to participate in AuthorAID. CSE’s board voted to develop the concept into a CSE project. Paul Bozuwa of Dartmouth Journal Services,^[40] who chaired a CSE Task Force on Science Journals, Poverty, and Human Development, took the lead for CSE on AuthorAID.^[41]

The Science and Development Network posted an article by the JPHP editors in its Opinions section describing AuthorAID to the broader science and development communities.^[42] The JPHP editors followed up with an editorial in their journal in which they explained the problems faced by developing world researchers when they try to publish their work in scientific journals.^[43]

In 2006, several AuthorAID experiments started to take shape. Certain central elements remain constant across the experiments. AuthorAID is not commercial, relying exclusively on volunteer scientific and editorial mentors to help developing world authors. All AuthorAID projects match mentors (senior scientists with editorial experience often in or near retirement, or experienced science editors) with researchers seeking help to present their work. Mentors forswear authorship, agreeing to accept acknowledgment from the researchers whom they assist. Together the mentors and authors work on a manuscript via the internet or e-mail (unless they are able to meet in person) through to publication.

The European Association of Science Editors (EASE)^[44] invited a presentation of AuthorAID at its 2006 Annual Meeting in Krakow, Poland and subsequently endorsed the concept. Both CSE^[45] and EASE^[46] have published short descriptions of AuthorAID in their own journals.

The International Society for Environmental Epidemiology,^[47] with almost 1000 members worldwide, created an AuthorAID for its developing world members, relying on the expertise of senior members as mentors.^[48] In 2007, this became the first operational experiment with the AuthorAID concept.

The higher education and research division (sarec) of the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA)^[49] provided money for a modest experiment engaging three of its grantees: the International Network for the Availability of Scientific Publication (INASP) in Oxford, UK;^[50] the Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR),^[51]; and the International Foundation for Science in Stockholm, Sweden.^[52] The grantees, who work with their constituents in the developing world, are committed to finding AuthorAID leaders in developing world institutions and moving AuthorAID projects to these institutions. The National University of Rwanda, a SIDA grantee, has added a project. The UK’s Department for International Development (DFID)^[53] also contributes resources for these experiments.

The grants from SIDA and DFID are also paying for the work of Barbara Gastel,^[54] the editor of Science Editor, published by the CSE. A Professor at Texas A&M University, she has many years of experience teaching science writing in China under the auspices of the China Medical Board.^[55] This and other pre-internet experiences have contributed to the design of AuthorAID. Professor Gastel is assembling the first set of web resources for author and mentor participants in AuthorAID projects.

These web materials will be open to all and may be linked or moved to any AuthorAID project website. All AuthorAID projects can share the basic collection of web-based material about written scientific communication. All scientific fields and forms of written communication are, in principle, amenable to the AuthorAID concept. Similarly, although experiments have begun with manuscripts intended for publication in English, the concept anticipates application in many languages and for many audiences. Each AuthorAID project will be carefully monitored to understand the process from the mentors’ and researchers’ points of view.

[edit] References

[edit] See also

• Academic publishing
• International English
• Open access
• Peer review
• Rhetoric of science
• Science and Development Network
• Scientific literature

[edit] Further reading

Belcher DD. Seeking Acceptance in an English-Only Research World. Journal of Second Language Writing 2007;16(1):1-22. Accessed 21 March 2008

Benfield JR, Feak CB. How authors can cope with the burden of English as an international language. ‘‘Chest’’ 2006; 129:1728-1730. PMID: 16778297. Accessed 22 April 2008

Benfield JR. Cardiothoracic surgeons divided by a common language. ‘‘Annals of Thoracic Surgery’’ 2007;84:363-364. PMID: 17643601. Accessed 22 April 2002

Burrough-Boenisch J. Culture and conventions: writing and reading Dutch scientific English.Utrecht (The Netherlands): LOT Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics (dissertation no. 59); 2002. [26] Accessed 21 March 2008

Council of Science Editors Global Theme Issue on poverty and human development. Oct 22, 2007. [27] Accessed 21 March 2008

Goehl TJ. Editorial. [http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2022644 Access denied.] ‘‘Environmental Health Perspectives’’ 2007;115(10):A482-A483. Accessed 21 March 2008

Kerans ME. Close to home. Notes on the post-publication withdrawal of a Spanish research paper. Ibérica 2002;4:39-54. Accessed 21 March 2008

Lillis T, Curry MJ. Professional academic writing by multilingual scholars. Interactions with literacy brokers in the production of English-medium texts. ‘‘Written Communication’’ 2006; 23(1):3-35 Accessed 22 April 2008

Suber P. Open access overview. [28] Accessed 24 April 2008.

Pan Z, Gao J. Crossing the language limitations. ‘‘PLos Medicine’’ 2006;(9):e410. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030410 PMID: 17002510. Accessed 22 April 2008