Sonia M. R. Vasconcelos

Scientist-friendly policies for non-native English-speaking authors: timely and welcome

That English is the lingua franca of todays science is an indisputable fact. Publication in English in international journals is a pre-requisite for a research paper to gain visibility in academia. However, English proficiency appears to be taken for granted in the scientific community, though this language can be a hurdle for a number of authors, particularly from non-native English-speaking countries. The influence of English proficiency on the publication output of Brazilian authors has never been assessed. We report our preliminary data on the relationship between the English proficiency of 51,223 researchers registered in the CNPq database and their publication output in international journals. We have found that publication rates are higher for those authors with good command of English, particularly written English. Although our research is still underway and our results are preliminary, they suggest that the correlation between written English proficiency and research productivity should not be underestimated. We also present the comments of some Brazilian scientists with high publication records on the relevance of communication skills to the scientific enterprise.

Discussing plagiarism in Latin American science. Brazilian researchers begin to address an ethical issue

Most developed countries have extensive guidelines about research integrity, which reflects a global attempt to harmonize policies for handling research misconduct. For the editors and readers of English‐language international journals, the question of plagiarism is of particular concern. Here, we look at the perception of plagiarism among Brazilian scientists. Our results suggest that the concept of plagiarism itself is not clear: although our participants unanimously regarded the use of the ideas and data of other researchers as wrong, they had mixed opinions about using passages of text. We also found that plagiarism is a sensitive issue, which is not yet appropriately addressed by formal institutional guidelines in all Latin American countries. > …although our participants unanimously regarded the use of the ideas and data of other researchers as wrong, they had mixed opinions about using passages of text Several countries, especially in Western Europe and the USA, have been paying increasing attention to research misconduct. The US Office of Research Integrity (ORI; Rockville, MD, USA), created in 1992, and the UK Research Integrity Office, created in 2006, are just two of several initiatives addressing this problem. In the USA, increased governmental scrutiny during the 1980s and 1990s led to congressional hearings and federal policies to foster research integrity (Dingell, 1993). In 1999, the US Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP; Washington, DC, USA) determined that fabrication, falsification and plagiarism (FFP) should be the main focus of investigations into allegations of research misconduct (OSTP, 1999). According to the OSTP definition, fabrication is “making up data or results and recording or reporting them”; falsification is “manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record”; and plagiarism is “the appropriation of another persons ideas, processes, results, …

The new geography of scientific collaborations

The science ethics melting pot is just heating up; what role will emerging nations play in setting new standards of practice that ensure successful international collaborations?

The 4th World Conference on Research Integrity: Research Integrity and Rewards: Improving Systems to Promote Responsible Research

Rewards have always been an important issue in the scientific community, where they are associated with notions of originality, priority of discovery and credit, among others. Look-ing at the reward system of science, Robert K. Merton (1910-2003) reminds us that although talent and effort are important assets for the research endeavor, achievement and cumula-tive advantage will mostly drive rewards

A new input indicator for the assessment of science & technology research?

Traditional input indicators of research performance, such as research funding, number of active scientists, and international collaborations, have been widely used to assess countries’ publication output. However, while publication in today’s English-only research world requires sound research in readable English, English proficiency may be a problem for the productivity of non-native English-speaking (NNES) countries. Data provided by the Brazilian National Research Council (CNPq) containing the academic profile of 51,223 Brazilian researchers show a correlation between English proficiency and publication output. According to our results, traditional input indicators may fall short of providing an accurate representation of the research performance of NNES developing countries.

Brazilian Science and Research Integrity: Where are We? What Next?

Building a world-class scientific community requires first-class ingredients at many different levels: funding, training, management, international collaborations, creativity, ethics, and an understanding of research integrity practices. All over the world, addressing these practices has been high on the science policy agenda of major research systems. Universities have a central role in fostering a culture of research integrity, which has posed additional challenges for faculty, students and administrators - but also opportunities. In Brazil, the leading universities and governmental funding agencies are collaborating on this project, but much remains to be done.

Writing up research in english: choice or necessity?

In 2002, an editorial of The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 1 stated that English was “a heavy burden” for a large number of researchers from non-native-English speaking (NNES) countries. This issue has recently been discussed in a Nature’ Special Report entitled “Lost in Translation” . The report addresses the difficulty NNES scientists have in mastering the English language. According to this report, a feeling of “frustration” permeates the career of some European scientists when it comes to doing and writing up research in English. The same appears to be true for Japanese and South Korean scientists. In fact, for NNES authors, good command of English does not appear to be a minor issue in their doing of science. Also, although they are expected to master the four skills, there is no dispute that the writing skill has a unique place in their academic life. Particularly today, it can be argued that written English proficiency is a form of cultural capital in the scientific community. Accumulating it, or rather, the capital associated with it, confers power (and prestige) on its members. Accordingly, the literature has reported that native-Englishspeaking (NES) researchers are at an advantage over NNES ones when it comes to getting published, especially in highimpact journals . Concerning the writing of manuscripts, a study on the acceptance rate of cardiovascular research articles indicated that badly-written manuscripts (mostly from NNES authors) were more likely to be rejected than well-written ones. In fact, we could assume that common sense alone would tell us that writing well can boost the authors’ chances of getting published. Even so, attention to language among scientists is still scant, which would account for the number of unreadable articles published even in top-tier journals. In a Letter published in the British Medical Journal , the author reports that “over the past 20 years...” many articles have shown “that medical information (such as journal articles, informed consent forms) is written in an ‘unreadable’ writing style.” Among the authors of such texts are NES researchers, as even those writing in their mother tongue can be poor writers. However, improving writing skills in the native language is not that difficult. As for a foreign language, a great deal of effort should be put into improving such skills. With respect to English, sharpening communication skills to submit well-written manuscripts to international journals may be associated with academic survival. This is true if we consider that almost 97% of what is indexed in the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Knowledge (ISIThompson) database is in English . Concerning Medline, 84% of all journals indexed in 2005 were in English, and 89% of citations in 2004 were to articles published in English . A more recent study has suggested that “all the articles indexed in the Medline database will comprise only those written in the English language by 2014.” . It is therefore well worth the effort to develop scientific writing skills. As Benfield & Howard state , “scientific publishing and the use of English have become more international than ever before”. Nevertheless, focusing on English in this international scenario does not undermine the importance of writing for national publications. Meneghini & Parker have discussed the visibility of SciELO journals and argued that “they [journals] would benefit if articles from non-Englishspeaking authors were published in their original language and in English.” Although the adoption of this policy would certainly pose a challenge to authors and editors, this initiative would possibly encourage Brazilian authors to improve their writing skills in English (even in Portuguese!). Therefore, initiatives to tackle this language issue would be welcome. Particularly in Brazil, formal training in scientific writing in English is not part of academic culture, and the country’s policy-makers appear to take English proficiency for granted in the development of science policies. What should authors do in this current situation? Perhaps, the first step to be taken is to reflect on the extent to which this language issue may affect research productivity. Does it affect yours? If so, the first decision to make is whether you want to wait for the implementation of scientist-friendly writing policies or use your initiative. Waiting for the implementation of these policies may be an unwise decision. Firstly, because this is a process that should take time; secondly, because research funding (for writing projects, editorial services, etc) in Brazil is limited, and we cannot assume that all Brazilian researchers would benefit from such policies... For now, what Brazilian authors can possibly do is use their initiative and improve their English communication skills. As previously suggested, the accumulated capital associated with written English proficiency may contribute substantially to research visibility in this international scenario.

Authorship Guidelines and Actual Practice: Are They Harmonized in Different Research Systems?

Changing patterns in collaborative research networks reflect a new geography of science that is increasingly shaped by interactions between established and emerging scientific powers, whose cultural and political diversity are now reflected in perhaps never before thought of interactions. The various partners in these international collaborations are likely to produce research results that should gradually lead to stronger diversity in research output, including an increase in international co-authorship. When it comes to multinational co-authored publications, among sensitive questions that may complicate these relationships is the way different research systems deal with research integrity. It is well worth examining how to accommodate different cultural traditions and normative assumptions embedded in academic practices for collaborative research networks. Given the increasingly international and interdisciplinary nature of science and engineering, any guidelines for authorship practices in international collaborations must be clear about the variations that exist across disciplines and cultures, variations which will have an impact on accepted practices and expectations for collaboration. Collaborative endeavors in research will succeed only if a broader understanding of potential obstacles to these collaborations is reached.

Correction to: Retractions covered by Retraction Watch in the 2013–2015 period: prevalence for the most productive countries

In the original publication of the article, the name of the second author in Marcus and Oranksy, 2014, was misspelled.

ACTION RESEARCH AND METHODOLOGICAL TRIANGULATION IN THE INVESTIGATION OF PERCEPTIONS OF A GROUP OF STUDENTS OF BASIC EDUCATION ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT

Action research has been used to address various issues in school and offers possibilities for teacher-researcher to better understand their school reality and improve his/her praxis. This study was conducted in a municipal school in Rio de Janeiro using the action research approach to address a crosscutting theme in science education environmental education (EE). The work was motivated by the following reflections: Are students interested in discussing EE?; Are students encouraged CAROLINA PAULO DO NASCIMENTO (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0327-6400)1* MAYLTA BRANDÃO DOS ANJOS (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6272-5056)2** SONIA MARIA RAMOS DE VASCONCELOS (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6315-6510)1** 1Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ Brasil 2Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia, Nilópolis, RJ Brasil *Mestre em Educação, Gestão e Difusão em Biociências pelo Programa de Educação, Gestão e Difusão em Biociências da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Professora de ciências na Escola Municipal Desembargador Oswaldo Portella, Rio de Janeiro. E-mail: **Doutora em Ciências pela Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro (UFRRJ). Professora e Pesquisadora no Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ensino de Ciências, PROPEC/Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia do Rio de Janeiro (IFRJ). E-mail: ***Doutora em Ciências (Educação, Difusão e Gestão em Biociências) pelo IBqM/UFRJ. Professora e Pesquisadora no Programa de Educação, Gestão e Difusão em Biociências e no Programa de Mestrado Profissional em Educação, Gestão e Difusão em Biociências, IBqM. E-mail: Carolina Paulo Nascimento | Maylta Brandão dos Anjos | Sonia Maria Ramos de Vasconcelos |2| Revista Ensaio | Belo Horizonte | v.20 | e8673 | 2018 by the school to think about environmental issues? We collected perceptions of a group of elementary students about the environment. They participated in the following activities: photographic record of the school neighborhood, and focus groups. Our goal was to get a picture of how students perceived their relationship with the environment. The methodological triangulation allowed us to explore results in more detail and gave insight into the interest of students in discussing EE and related issues at school.