変容する学術出版

2022年12月17日 行動経済学会第16回大会 研究者向け 教育セッション 「変容する研究世界を生き抜くための作法」 変容する学術出版 山田祐樹 (専門：実験心理学) 九州大学基幹教育院

・正直なところ，行動経済学分野の出版の実情にはあまり詳しく ないため，あくまで心理学の周辺事態をお伝えします ・ぜひご自身の分野でも似たことが起こりそうか，今回の話が なにか役に立ちそうかという観点でお聞きください・・・

メガジャーナル ・主にインパクトベースの選択性を下げることで，多数の論文の掲載を 行う学際性の高いオープンアクセスジャーナル メガジャーナルという名前の ジャーナルもあるので注意 （論文2本しか出てなかった）

オープン査読のオープンネスについて オープン査読といっても細かく分けるといろんなパターンがある (Ross-Hellauer & Görögh, 2019) 1. Open identities 著者・査読者が誰なのかがオープン 2. Open reports 査読内容がオープン 3. Open participation 誰でも査読に参加できる 4. Open interaction 査読関係者が直接意見交換できる 5. Open pre-review manuscripts 査読開始前から原稿が公開されてる 6. Open final version commenting 最終版にコメントできる 7. Open platforms 出版の場とは違うところで査読が行われる

さっきの雑誌の査読オープン度 PLOS ONE 思った以上にオープンじゃない Scientific Reports, HSSC Open pre-review manuscripts Open nal version commenting Open platforms (PCI) Open pre-review manuscripts Open nal version commenting 交流型の査読システムが特徴的だったが今は他にもある。ここだけ出版後コメントができない Frontiers journals MDPI journals PeerJ journals ここらへん すごい Royal Society Open Science fi fi fi fi fi fi F1000Research Open identities Open interaction Open pre-review manuscripts Open reports (部分的) Open pre-review manuscripts Open nal version commenting Open identities (部分的) Open reports (部分的) Open platforms (PCI) Open pre-review manuscripts Open nal version commenting Open identities (部分的) Open reports Open platforms (PCI-RR) Open pre-review manuscripts Open nal version commenting Open identities Open reports Open nal version commenting Open interaction Open pre-review manuscripts Open platforms (PCI-RR)

プレプリント • 出版前の原稿等をアップロードするサーバーが数種ある • 行動経済学だとSSRNとかPsyArXivとかがメインでしょうか？Jxiv？ • ジャーナルでの出版まで時間がかかる場合が多く，たいてい投稿と 同時にプレプリントも出す。 • たまに「見て欲しい」研究者などに 手軽に届くこともある。

プレプリントの弱点 • (ほとんどが)査読されていないこと。コロナ禍では，無査読論文 を根拠に超重要な案件について強い主張をする人もいたりして， えらい揉めてる。 • 引用記録が微妙。どのバージョンを引用したかを分けるべきだ が，バージョンごとに論文としての同一性が保たれないことに。 • ビジネスモデルが微妙。サーバーが突如消えたら，そこでの出版 記録等も全部消える。

Hypothes.is • こういうサービスを使えば査読は原理上可能。 プレプリサイト Hypothes.isを利用 した我々のコメント

Review Commons • 2019年末に開始されたReview Commonsでは，プレプリントに対する 投稿前査読が実施できる。ジャーナルはその査読情報をデシジョンに 利用できる。ただまあ，まだそんなに多くの実績はない。なお bioRxiv/medRxiv限定。 • あと，2022年12月の時点で，心理学も行動経済学も非対象。 強引に「Neuroscience」枠で狙うしかないか。

Post-Publication Peer Review • 出版された後でもプレプリントサーバーに原稿上げてくれればそ れに対してバンバン査読するし，そのコメントも引用可能にする といいよという提案も我々はしてる。（そう，プレプリントで）

プレプリントポリシー Sherpa Romeoとかの専用サイトで調べ放題 (ここは主にオープンアクセスポリシー)

プレプリントポリシー

プレプリントポリシー もう少し広いポリシー集

プレプリントポリシー

プレプリントポリシー arXiv.org, bioRxiv.org, ChemRxiv.org, medRxiv.orgなどの非営利プレプリン トサーバーへのポストのみOK。 査読中は更新禁止。 なんでもOK。

事前登録 探索的 確証的 Waldron & Allen (2022) を改変

論文投稿 解析 実験 学術誌 原稿

The preregistration revolution COLLOQUIUM PAPER プレレジ革命 (Nosek et al., 2018) Brian A. Noseka,b,1, Charles R. Ebersoleb, Alexander C. DeHavena, and David T. Mellora a Center for Open Science, Charlottesville, VA 22903; and bDepartment of Psychology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904 Edited by Richard M. Shiffrin, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, and approved August 28, 2017 (received for review June 15, 2017) Progress in science relies in part on generating hypotheses with existing observations and testing hypotheses with new observations. This distinction between postdiction and prediction is appreciated conceptually but is not respected in practice. Mistaking generation of postdictions with testing of predictions reduces the credibility of research findings. However, ordinary biases in human reasoning, such as hindsight bias, make it hard to avoid this mistake. An effective solution is to define the research questions and analysis plan before observing the research outcomes—a process called preregistration. Preregistration distinguishes analyses and outcomes that result from predictions from those that result from postdictions. A variety of practical strategies are available to make the best possible use of preregistration in circumstances that fall short of the ideal application, such as when the data are preexisting. Services are now available for preregistration across all disciplines, facilitating a rapid increase in the practice. Widespread adoption of preregistration will increase distinctiveness between hypothesis generation and hypothesis testing and will improve the credibility of research findings. overconfidence in post hoc explanations (postdictions) and inflate the likelihood of believing that there is evidence for a finding when there is not. Presenting postdictions as predictions can increase the attractiveness and publishability of findings by falsely reducing uncertainty. Ultimately, this decreases reproducibility (6–11). Mental Constraints on Distinguishing Predictions and Postdictions It is common for researchers to alternate between postdiction and prediction. Ideas are generated, and observed data modify those ideas. Over time and iteration, researchers develop understanding of the phenomenon under study. That understanding might result in a model, hypothesis, or theory. The dynamism of the research enterprise and limits of human reasoning make it easy to mistake postdiction as prediction. The problem with this is understood as post hoc theorizing or hypothesizing after the results are known (12). It is an example of circular reasoning–– generating a hypothesis based on observing data, and then evaluating the validity of the hypothesis based on the same data. Hindsight bias, also known as the I-knew-it-all-along effect, is the tendency to see outcomes as more predictable after the fact compared with before they were observed (13, 14). With hindsight bias, the observer uses the data to generate an explanation, a postdiction, and simultaneously perceives that they would have anticipated that explanation in advance, a prediction. A common case is | methodology open science preregistration P | confirmatory analysis | exploratory analysis | rogress in science is marked by reducing uncertainty about nature. Scientists generate models that may explain prior observations and predict future observations. Those models are PSYCHOLOGICAL AND COGNITIVE SCIENCES データとる前にやることを登録しておき，その通りやる

• https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1708274114

プレレジ 解析 実験 どっかに登録 もう1回出す 原稿 学術誌

The preregistration revolution COLLOQUIUM PAPER プレレジ革命 (Nosek et al., 2018) Brian A. Noseka,b,1, Charles R. Ebersoleb, Alexander C. DeHavena, and David T. Mellora a Center for Open Science, Charlottesville, VA 22903; and bDepartment of Psychology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904 Edited by Richard M. Shiffrin, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, and approved August 28, 2017 (received for review June 15, 2017) Progress in science relies in part on generating hypotheses with existing observations and testing hypotheses with new observations. This distinction between postdiction and prediction is appreciated conceptually but is not respected in practice. Mistaking generation of postdictions with testing of predictions reduces the credibility of research findings. However, ordinary biases in human reasoning, such as hindsight bias, make it hard to avoid this mistake. An effective solution is to define the research questions and analysis plan before observing the research outcomes—a process called preregistration. Preregistration distinguishes analyses and outcomes that result from predictions from those that result from postdictions. A variety of practical strategies are available to make the best possible use of preregistration in circumstances that fall short of the ideal application, such as when the data are preexisting. Services are now available for preregistration across all disciplines, facilitating a rapid increase in the practice. Widespread adoption of preregistration will increase distinctiveness between hypothesis generation and hypothesis testing and will improve the credibility of research findings. overconfidence in post hoc explanations (postdictions) and inflate the likelihood of believing that there is evidence for a finding when there is not. Presenting postdictions as predictions can increase the attractiveness and publishability of findings by falsely reducing uncertainty. Ultimately, this decreases reproducibility (6–11). Mental Constraints on Distinguishing Predictions and Postdictions It is common for researchers to alternate between postdiction and prediction. Ideas are generated, and observed data modify those ideas. Over time and iteration, researchers develop understanding of the phenomenon under study. That understanding might result in a model, hypothesis, or theory. The dynamism of the research enterprise and limits of human reasoning make it easy to mistake postdiction as prediction. The problem with this is understood as post hoc theorizing or hypothesizing after the results are known (12). It is an example of circular reasoning–– generating a hypothesis based on observing data, and then evaluating the validity of the hypothesis based on the same data. Hindsight bias, also known as the I-knew-it-all-along effect, is the tendency to see outcomes as more predictable after the fact compared with before they were observed (13, 14). With hindsight bias, the observer uses the data to generate an explanation, a postdiction, and simultaneously perceives that they would have anticipated that explanation in advance, a prediction. A common case is when the researcher’s prediction is vague so that many possible outcomes can be rationalized after the fact as supporting the pre- これでいくつかのQRPsの実行可能性は下がる | methodology open science preregistration P | confirmatory analysis | exploratory analysis | 例えば実験前に仮説を登録させるのでHARKingできない。 rogress in science is marked by reducing uncertainty about nature. Scientists generate models that may explain prior observations and predict future observations. Those models are approximations and simplifications of reality. Models are iteratively improved and replaced by reducing the amount of pre- PSYCHOLOGICAL AND COGNITIVE SCIENCES つまり研究者の自由度を下げ，行為をオープンにする

• https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1708274114

査読付き事前登録 (registered reports; レジレポ) ・最初っから雑誌に登録したら早そう ・そのときついでに査読もしてもらったら良さそう

レジレポ 解析 実験 学術誌 もう1回書いて出す 原稿

査読付き事前登録 (registered reports; レジレポ) ・Stage 1の査読を通過したらin principle acceptance (IPA)となり，原則 的に結果の如何を問わず掲載が約束される。 ・p値おかまいなしで掲載されるのでpハッキングする必要がない ・査読は2回やることになる。確かに面倒だが，Stage 2の査読は結果と 考察に注力されるので，おかしなこと書かなければそんなに問題ない ・2022年12月時点で300以上の学術誌がレジレポ制度を導入

査読付き事前登録 (registered reports; レジレポ) レジレポを導入している心理学和文誌はパーソナリティ研究1誌のみ。 3年位たって最近やっと2本出来 ・ショートレポートの枠のみをレジレポ可とする最小修正戦略は妙案 ・しかしショートレポートの字数でいいのか？という議論が（主に我々 の間で）白熱

ところで私はいくつかの雑誌で編集や運営に関係してます (レジレポ大好き人間だと誤解されてます) 心理学研究 (編集委員) 認知科学 (編集委員) Journal of Illusion (Senior Editor) Trends in Scholarly Publishing (Editorial Board Member) Peer Community Journal (Editorial Board Member) Collabra: Psychology (Associate Editor) PeerJ (レジレポ専用Editorial Board Member) Scientific Reports (レジレポ専用Editorial Board Member) PCI Registered Reports (Managing Board Member)

PCI RR Peer Community In • プレプリントを査読して評価しようというコミュニティ。 • 査読を希望する場合は，PCIへ投稿 • Recommender (いわゆるエディター的存在)が査読に回すか判断 し，通常通り査読を実施。 • 修正等で基準をクリアしたらacceptされ，査読内容と推薦文が 公表される。 • 推薦された論文は，提携する学術誌に査読なしで掲載される。

Understanding the role of visual and auditory information in evaluating musical performance Yuki Yamada based on reviews by David Hughes and Kyoshiro Sasaki A recommendation of: STAGE 1 Open Access Sight vs. sound in the judgment of music performance: Cross-cultural evidence from classical piano and Tsugaru shamisen competitions Gakuto Chiba, Yuto Ozaki, Shinya Fujii, Patrick E. Savage (2021), Psyarxiv, xky4j, stage 1 preregistration, in principle acceptance of version 5 by Peer Community in Registered Reports https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/xky4j Published: 28 December 2021 Submitted: 24 September 2021, Recommended: 28 December 2021 Copyright: This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licen ses/by-nd/4.0/ Cite this recommendation as: Yuki Yamada (2021) Understanding the role of visual and auditory information in evaluating musical performance. Peer Community in Registered Reports, 100003. https://doi.org/10.24072/pci.rr.100003 Recommendation In this Stage 1 Registered Report, Chiba and colleagues (2021) aim to investigate how people use information from visual and auditory modalities when evaluating musical performances. Previous studies, mainly using Western music, have reported a visual dominance, but this has not yet been clearly and consistently reported. Thus, the authors propose to evaluate both the reproducibility and generalizability of the previous findings by conducting a replication study using the methodology of the previous studies and by introducing a new experimental condition in which the Tsugaru-shamisen, a unique Japanese musical instrument, is also performed. This study could represent an important turning point in the research context of performance evaluation and would be of considerable value. This manuscript was peer-reviewed by two experts in scientific methodology and Japanese traditional music, respectively, and during the two-round peer-review process they made a number of important points, but eventually awarded the manuscript a highly positive response. I am therefore pleased to recommend that this Stage 1 Registered Report meets our Stage 1 criteria and is worthy of in-principle acceptance. I look forward to seeing the results and discussion reported in Stage 2, with the expectation that the experiment conducted by the authors will be in strict accordance with this protocol. *The following is a very minor comment, which I hope the authors will find helpful in the future. Of course, this is not related to hypothesis construction and does not require PEER COMMUNITY IN REGISTERED REPORTS | DOI: 10.24072/pci.rr.100003 1

• https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/xky4j
• https://doi.org/10.24072/pci.rr.100003
• http://creativecommons.org/licen

現在稼働中のPCIたち Peer Community in Evolutionary Biology (PCI Evol Biol Peer Community in Ecology (PCI Ecol Peer Community in Paleontology (PCI Paleo Peer Community in Animal Science (PCI Anim Sci Peer Community in Neuroscience (PCI Neuro Peer Community in Zoology (PCI Zool Peer Community in Genomics (PCI Genomics Peer Community in Mathematical & Computational Biology (PCI Math Comp Biol Peer Community in Forest & Wood Sciences (PCI Forest & Wood Sci Peer Community in Archaeology (PCI Archaeo Peer Community in Network Science (PCI Network Sci Peer Community in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Chemistry (PCI Ecotox Env Chem Peer Community in Infections (PCI Infections Peer Community in Microbiology (PCI Microbiol Peer Community in Registered Reports (PCI RR Peer Community in Meta-Research (PCI Meta Res) 終わったかも？ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) PCI Psychは無いので私は困ってます

コロナによるIPA取り下げ事件 共同研究者の佐々木さんのケース • 佐々木氏が何らかの雑誌でIPAをゲット (記録簿によると2020年2月5日。とても嬉しそうだった) • 7月5日，コロナのために実験室実験でのデータ取得(N=332)が 間に合いませんと雑誌に問い合わせたところ「じゃあ取り下げね」 との無慈悲な回答。佐々木氏，号泣しつつ取り下げ。 • その後怒りだし，3日間で本件に関するプレプリントを書き，コロナ 禍ではIPA維持の問題も出てくるよと警鐘を鳴らした。

ポータブルIPAへ 〜奇跡〜 • プレプリを見たChris Chambers氏 (カーディフ大学) から連絡 • 10月7日，Royal Society Open Science誌へIPAの移転が完了 • レジレポ史上初の出来事。つまり，IPAは雑誌に縛られないもの であることが例証された。 • （何事も論文として書いて出しておくの超大事）

PCIでレジレポ PCI RRの発足 • あらゆる科学分野の第1段階プレプリントを対象。査読を通過した らIPAになる。

PCIでレジレポ PCI RRの発足 心理系提携雑誌 e e l y t y e y y s n e h x J イ. Addiction Research & Theor ロ. Advances in Cognitive Psycholog ハ. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Scienc ニ. Cambridge Educational Research e-Journa ホ. Experimental Psycholog ヘ. BMJ Open Scienc ト. Corte チ. Experimental Psycholog リ. F1000Researc ヌ. Infant and Child Developmen ル. Journal of Cognitio ヲ. NeuroImage: Report ワ. Peer カ. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practic ヨ. Royal Society Open Scienc タ. Swiss Psychology Open

PCIでレジレポ PCI RRの発足 心理系関心雑誌（途中からの投稿可能） n l n r y e s イ. Affective Scienc ロ. Animal Behavior & Cognitio ハ. Biolinguistic ニ. Collabra: Psycholog ホ. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Genera ヘ. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognitio ト. Nature Human Behaviou チ. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors

PCIでレジレポ PCI RRの発足 • あらゆる科学分野の第1段階プレプリントを対象。査読を通過した らIPAになる。 • それ以外は通常のPCIと同じ。第2段階で採択されたら Recommenderが推薦文を書き，提携雑誌に持込可能。 • 現時点においてプレプリント界隈で最も実験的な気がする。

いくつかの最近の話題

eLifeの一件 ・eLifeという生命科学系のジャーナル (IF: 8.713) が突然，今後は査 読のみで，掲載判定をしませんと宣言→激震 ・実は以前から，エディターが査読者に回した時点で事実上のアクセ プト扱いとし，査読者のコメントに対して対応は要求する一方，従わ ない場合はその理由を明言してそのまま掲載させるオプションを試験 導入してはいた (Patterson & Schekman, 2018)。 ・今後も同様の動きは出るかもしれないが，Nature系社説では渋めの評 価 (Nat Biomed Eng, 2022) ・ついでにPCIの人たちもけっこう反発していた・・・

アイデアジャーナル 実験前までしか書かない論文の雑誌もある。こちらも少しずつ流行って きている。 仮説生成と仮説検証の分業化がより加速しそう

他人に考察させる British Journal of Anaesthesia誌は，総合考察だけを別の研究者に書かせる スタイルを試した。これは結果の恣意的な解釈や誇張(スピン)など推論再 現性が低いことを補償しようとする試み。結果の前後での分業と等しい。 イントロ ↓ 方法 ↓ 結果 ↓ ↓ ↓ 考察 考察 考察 （元著者）（研究者A） （研究者B）・・・

マイクロパブリッシング もうプロトコルを決めてしまって行うような実験の場合はイントロや考察 を長々書かなくてもいいんじゃないか。ということで，方法と結果の必要 最低限を書くタイプの論文が出始めている 07/31/2019 EOR-1 and EOR-2 function in RMED/V neuron specification Xun Huang 1,2,* and Yishi Jin 1,3,* 1. MCD biology, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA95064 2. Institute of Genetics and Developmental Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100101, China 3. Neurobiology Section, Division of Biological Sciences, University of California, San Diego, CA92093 (*: co-corresponding authors; email: [email protected], [email protected]) 07/31/2019 2(ju190) single mutants, indicating that in eor-2(ju190) and eor-1(ju198) animals, the RMED and RMEV cells are alive, but that their differentiated traits are likely altered. To further examine whether other properties of the RMED/V cells might be altered in these mutants, we looked at the expression of Pavr-15GFP, which is normally expressed in both RMED and RMEV neurons (Dent et al., 1997) and Plim-4GFP transgenes, which is normally expressed in RMEV neuron and some other head neurons (Sagasti et al., 1999). We found that in eor-2(ju190) animals, Pavr-15GFP was not expressed in RMED/V (Figure 1C), the GFP intensity from Plim-4GFP transgene was greatly reduced, but not abolished, in all expressing cells (Figure 1D). These data show that eor-2(ju190) alters multiple differentiated aspects of RMED/V neurons. Reagents Strains are: CZ2014 eor-1(ju198), juIs76; CZ2006 eor-2(ju190); juIs76 The GFP reporters used are listed below: juIs76[Punc-25GFP]; juIs73[Punc-25GFP]; Pavr-15GFP; Plim-4GFP. References Dent JA, Davis MW, Avery L. avr-15 encodes a chloride channel subunit that mediates inhibitory glutamatergic neurotransmission and ivermectin sensitivity in Caenorhabditis elegans. EMBO J 1997, 16:5867-5879 PubMed PMID:9312045 Huang X, Cheng HJ, Tessier-Lavigne M, Jin Y. MAX-1, a novel PH/MyTH4/FERM domain cytoplasmic protein implicated in netrin-mediated axon repulsion. Neuron 2002 34:563-576 PubMed PMID:12062040 Huang, X; Jin, Y (2019). New mutants defective in RMED/V neuron specification are alleles of EOR-1 and EOR-2. microPublication Biology. 10.17912/micropub.biology.000139 Huang X, Powell-Coffman JA, Jin Y. The AHR-1 aryl hydrocarbon receptor and its co-factor the AHA-1 aryl hydrocarbon receptor nuclear translocator specify GABAergic neuron cell fate in C. elegans. Development 2004 131:819-828 PubMed PMID:14757639 Figure 1. Mutants affecting RMED/V neuron specification. (A) Punc-25GFP expression in different mutants. Schematic illustrations of RME cell morphology in wild type (WT) and mutants are in the right. Scale bar: 50µm. (B) RMED cells (Arrowed) in wild type and eor-2(ju190) animals. Arrowheads point to abnormal large vesicles accumulating in the head of eor-2(ju190) animals. Scale bar: 10µm. (C) Expression of Pavr-15GFP in wild type and eor-2(ju190) animals. Pavr-15GFP is expressed in RMED/V neurons in wild type, while the expression is lost in eor2(ju190) animals. Scale bar: 10µm. (D) Expression of Plim-4GFP in wild type and eor-2(ju190) animals. Plim-4GFP is brightly expressed in some neurons in the head region in wild type, while the expression is attenuated in eor2(ju190) animals. Scale bar: 10µm. (A-D) All the images were taken at young adult stage. Description In a visual screen for genes that regulate the pattern of the juIs76[Punc-25GFP] marker, which labels four GABAergic RME neurons and 19 ventral cord D-type neurons (Huang et al., 2002), we isolated two mutants, eor-2(ju190) and eor-1(ju198) (Huang and Jin, 2019). In both eor-2(ju190) and eor-1(ju198) mutants, Punc-25GFP expression was almost completely abolished in RMED/V cells, whereas RMEL/R cells and the D neurons showed normal morphology (Figure 1A). We observed similar defects with a different Punc-25GFP transgene. The absence of Punc25GFP expression was seen in all larval stages and adults, was more frequent in RMED than in RMEV cells. For example, 98% of eor-1(ju198) animals lost Punc-25GFP expression in RMED and 67% in RMEV (N=100). ju198 behaves as a partial loss of function mutation because 100% and 94% of eor-1(cs28) animals do not express Punc25GFP expression in RMED and RMEV, respectively (N=100) (Huang and Jin, 2019). eor-2(ju190) animals also displayed mild Unc, low penetrant Egl and rod-like lethality. The loss of Punc-25GFP expression in eor-2(ju190) and eor-1(ju198) could be due to cell fate alterations or cell death. To distinguish between these possibilities, we first examined the cell body positions of RMED and RMEV cells under Nomarski microscope (Huang et al., 2004). In both eor-2(ju190) and eor-1(ju198) mutants, the RMED and RMEV cells were found in their normal locations (Figure 1B). We also made double mutants of eor-2(ju190) and ced-3(n717), which blocks apoptosis, and found that eor-2(ju190); ced-3(n717) double mutants showed absence of Punc-25GFP expression in RMED/V, similar to eor- Sagasti A, Hobert O, Troemel ER, Ruvkun G, Bargmann CI. Alternative olfactory neuron fates are specified by the LIM homeobox gene lim-4. Genes Dev 1999 13:1794-1806 PubMed PMID:10421632 Acknowledgements We thank C. Bargmann for Plim-4GFP, L. Avery for Pavr-15GFP reporters. We appreciate valuable discussions with O. Hobert for communicating unpublished results. Funding NIH R01 NS 035546 Author Contributions: X.H performed all the experiments. X.H. and Y.J. conceived the experiments and wrote the paper. Reviewed by Oliver Hobert Received 07/01/2019. Accepted 07/18/2019. Published Online 07/31/2019. Copyright © 2019 by the authors. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Citation: Huang, X; Jin, Y (2019). EOR-1 and EOR-2 function in RMED/V neuron specification. microPublication Biology. 10.17912/micropub.biology.000138 ←microPublication Biology誌の例

なので作ってみたことはある

なので作ってみたことはある 1 Psychological Micro Reports Disappearance of disappearance of the recency effect: Experimental report of Yamada (2019) Psychological Micro Reports DATA AVAILABILITY The data used in the present study can be available at https:// bit.ly/2YLr2PM FUNDING No funds supported the present article. Yuki Yamada Kyushu University AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS Yuki Yamada: Data curation, Formal Analysis, Visualization, Writing – original draft 1.00 No delay Delay CONFLICT OF INTERESTS The author declare no competing interests. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Recall rate 0.75 I would like to thank the Japanese Community for Open and Reproducible Science (JCORS) for enhancing the motivation to prepare this manuscript. REVIEWED BY 0.50 Nobody HISTORY Received: December 9, 2019 Accepted: December 9, 2019 Published: December 9, 2019 0.25 REFERENCES 0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Serial position Results of the experiment. Error bars denote 95% confidence intervals. DESCRIPTION I conducted an experiment based strictly on the protocol of Yamada (2019). Analysis was performed according to the protocol. As a result of simple effect tests using omnibus tests, the effect of serial position was significant in both the no-delay (χ2(9) = 719, p < .001) and delay (χ2(9) = 359, p < .001) conditions, suggesting that the serial position effect occurred in both the delay conditions. However, the effect of delay was not significant in the 6-10 serial positions other than the position 7 (Pos6: χ2(1) = 2.29, p = .13; Pos7: χ2(1) = 4.22, p = .04; Pos8: χ2(1) = 0.06, p = .82; Pos9: χ2(1) = 0.85, p = .36; Pos10: χ2(1) = 2.02, p = .16). Therefore, I failed to reproduce the disappearance of the recency effect by delay: Even if delay was added after the list, a strong recency effect still occurred. I disclose the constraints on generality for this experiment. The subjects were only Japanese undergraduate students at Kyushu University. Thus, nationality, age, academic level are not general. The stimuli were also written in Japanese: Stimuli were not general. I also disclose the deviance. For the delay group, the exact time was not measured, but a lecture of about 5 minutes was inserted after the list. This group consisted of students from two lectures, and the inserted lecture time and contents were slightly different between these lectures. It remains possible that these extraneous variables have influenced the present results. METHOD Subjects Five hundred ninety-seven undergraduate students participated in the experiment. Two hundred ninety-six were assigned to the no-delay group and 301 were assigned to the delay group. There was no report that the front slide was not visible. Subjects were fully informed about experimental ethics and were not forced to participate in the experiment. There was no reward for them. Stimuli The stimuli were identical to the protocol. Procedure The procedure was identical to the protocol. Yamada, Y. (2019). Conceptual replication study on disappearance of the recency effect in the serial position curve: A proposal. Psychological Micro Reports, e0001. COPYRIGHT © 2019 by the author. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. CITATION Yamada, Y. (2019). Disappearance of disappearance of the recency effect: Experimental report of Yamada (2019). Psychological Micro Reports, e0002. DOI: XXX 2

なので作ってみたことはある 詳しくはここに。心理学でもコロナ禍以降にこういうの必要じゃないです か？という内容なので，たぶん行動経済学にも当てはまる気がします。 Yamada, Y. (2020). Micropublishing During and After the COVID-19 Era. Collabra: Psychology, 6(1): 36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.370 PERSPECTIVE/OPINION Micropublishing During and After the COVID-19 Era Yuki Yamada Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/collabra/artic In the COVID-19 situation, social and behavioral science evidence is accumulating rapidly through online data collection, but the options to share and publish this information are scarce. As a remedy, I recommend the adoption of micropublishing in the fields of social and behavioral sciences. While micropublishing has been gaining popularity, it is not yet widely accepted or utilized by existing academic journals. Greater implementation would improve the availability of data in the immediate COVID-19 era and establish a post-COVID-19 publishing methodology that could increase researcher and practitioner engagement in real time. I recommend micropublishing in a specific manner that bifurcates an experiment’s methodology or survey method from the subsequently published data based on that experiment protocol. Published findings could be presented in a series and edited as new data emerges. This publishing system promotes cumulative science. To provide a visual example that supports my argument, I created a demo journal with sample papers organized according to the structure I recommend. The demo journal has features—except a Digital Object Finder (DOI)—that make it possible to publish social and behavioral sciences research. It could be replicated for a newly established journal. Alternatively, existing journals could add a section dedicated to micropublication.

オクトパス もう論文の各構成要素だけを誰かが用意して全部つなげればいいんじゃないか？ という発想の雑誌。科学的分業の究極形態の一つ。

三位一体査読 (Trinity Review) レジレポ時に倫理審査とグラント申請も同時にやればお得じゃない？ という提案（Mori et al., 2022） Mori et al. BMC Research Notes 2022, 15(1):184 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-06043-x BMC Research Notes Open Access COMMENTARY Trinity review: integrating Registered Reports with research ethics and funding reviews Yuki Mori1† , Kaito Takashima1† , Kohei Ueda1 , Kyoshiro Sasaki2 and Yuki Yamada3* Abstract One major source of exhaustion for researchers is the redundant paperwork of three different documents—research papers, ethics review applications, and research grant applications—for the same research plan. This is a wasteful and redundant process for researchers, and it has a more direct impact on the career development of early-career researchers. Here, we propose a trinity review system based on Registered Reports that integrates scientific, ethics, and research funding reviews. In our proposed trinity review system, scientific and ethics reviews are undertaken con-

• https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-06043-x

ABCDEF出版 (Autonomous, bidding, credible, decentralized, ethical, and funded publishing)
三位一体査読をブロックチェーン使ってやったらどう？という提案
（Oka

et al., 2022）

!"#$%&'()"%*'+',-$.$%&
!"#"$%

!"#$%&'

!"#$%&#'#" ($$) !"#$"%
*$+#,&$)$-.*$/0)&

()"*+$&,%-*%.
!"#"$%

特に，資金調達の部分
を分散化しているのが
特徴的

!"#$%&/

/)01#12"$%'30.$%&'
40-'45%6$%&
,*+""

!"#$%&0

78*8"-12'+',-$.$%&

!"#$%&1

988-'783$8:'

&'()*+""

!"#"$%

!"#$%&2

95;)$*2

捕食出版 ・査読をまともにせず，掲載料だけ払えばアクセプトするような雑誌が 近年横行している ・見分けるのはけっこう難しく，グレーが多い。(Yamada & Teixeira da Silva, 2022) Cabellsのリストとかが使えるが，有料だし個人契約できない。Beallの はもう古すぎる。 ・冒頭で触れたMDPIもグレー。どっちつかずだったので体験してみた。

publications
Opinion

How to Protect the Credibility of Articles Published in
Predatory Journals

Yuki Yamada

捕食系雑誌に掲載された論文の信頼性を守る方法
Faculty of Arts and Science, Kyushu University, Fukuoka 819-0395, Japan; [email protected];
Tel.: +81-92-802-5837

Abstract: Predatory journals often prey on innocent researchers who are unaware of the threat they
pose. This paper discusses what researchers can do if they unintentionally publish a paper in a
predatory journal, including measures to take before submission, during peer review, and after the
journal has accepted a manuscript. The specific recommendations discussed are pre-registration, presubmission peer-review, open peer-review, topping up reviewers, post-publication peer review, open
recommendation, and treatment as unrefereed. These measures may help to ensure the credibility of
the article, even if it is published in a predatory journal. The present article suggests that an open and
multi-layered assessment of research content enhances the credibility of all research articles, even
those published in non-predatory journals. If applied consistently by researchers in various fields,
the suggested measures may enhance reproducibility and promote the advancement of science.
Keywords: publication bias; predatory journals/publishing; research personnel; quality control;
periodicals; peer review; research; inexperienced researchers; ethical publishing

!"#!$%&'(!

• https://www.mdpi.com/journal/publications

できることリスト ・そもそもそんなとこに出さない ・取り下げる ・プレレジをしておく ・有料の投稿前査読サービスを受けておく ・コミュニティによる投稿前査読を受けておく ・オープン査読 大事なのは，査読の実態を作ること ・査読者追加を要求 査読が実施されていることを見える化すること ・出版後査読 ・オープン推薦システムの活用 ・業績欄にて査読なし論文扱いにする

・有料の投稿前査読サービスを受けておく
Scientific Review Report

エディテージに有料査読サービスを依頼しておいた

The future of high-impact publication is here

[Prepared by our Peer Reviewer, Senior Science Editor, and Managing Editor]

3名からの査読 (←この人達なのかは不明)
ただし金額は一番安いやつの5倍程度かかった・・・
The image above is for representational purposes only.

Page 1 of 13

benefit the reader if this is discussed in more detail. Such instances where this might
require your attention have been flagged for you in a form of a comment in the
manuscript. Let’s say for example, that I have submitted to a predatory journal (without
knowing it) and the manuscript gets accepted. I request additional reviewers and an
additional round of reviewing. The journal rejects this request and asks me to sign the
forms to publish the research. What can I do then? How might my request for further
rounds (or reviewers) become public, if the predatory journal refuses to make it public? I
could add my correspondence with the journal in my Linkedin page or in my CV, but will
this be enough for everyone that retrieves the study to know that there has been such a
request? The same applies for the Open review suggestion; i.e., I request an open review
but the journal rejects this request. What then? If this is done at an institutional level
(that all journals are forced to make such requests public), then it might work better.
However, predatory journals have been known to go to extreme lengths to appear
legitimate (fake reviews, fake reviewers, fake citations etc.), and a measure like that
might still be exploited. That is why I stated above that some of these measures seem to
be ‘Band-Aid’ treatments, which do not cure the actual problem. The same applies to
some of the suggestions concerning the After-acceptance phase; where some of these
suggestions might work for honest (but of poor-quality) journals that might have been
classified as ‘predatory’ (individual level). However, actual predatory journals will never
accept such suggestions, or might not care much to implement them (similarly to other
charlatans), because they will always depend on researchers that put their own selfinterest first and not the scientific interest, as well as the unaware (‘prey’) researchers that
might be duped. Some of these suggestions might work better at the institutional level
(e.g., where all journals are forced to have a post-publication peer review).

Peer Reviewer's Comments

Summary

Scientific Review Report
(Ctrl+Click on any section label to go to that section)

Thank you very much for the opportunity to evaluate this manuscript. I really enjoyed
reading and working on your manuscript. The topic of predatory publishing is
extremely important for both the scientific endeavor (honest and transparent ‘truthseeking’), the careers of researchers and research funding.

Peer Reviewer's Comments ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Peer Reviewer's Comments .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Senior Science Editor’s Comments on Language and Paper Structure .................................................................................................9
Senior Science Editor’s and Managing Editor’s Comments on the Paper’s Journal Readiness ............................................ 11

I will have to declare here that I do not fully agree with your point of view, since I find
predatory publishing to be extremely unethical for a number of reasons (e.g., poor
quality of research, waste of researchers’ and reader’s time, waste of participants time
and waste of funding, to name a few). One of the biggest dangers of predatory
publishing is that these types of journals amplify the chasm between scientific
knowledge and the publics’ understanding of this knowledge (where clearly invalid,
clearly biased and poor-quality studies might be cited by lay people as valid and
rigorous research). Thus, eroding the public’s trust in academic and scientific writing.
There are a number of charlatans or special interest groups (i.e., anti-vaccination
advocates, creationists, climate-change deniers etc.) that have exploited this system. In
my view, the problem of predatory publishing should be ‘cut at its roots’ (by
incentivizing quality and not quantity of research, faculties not incentivizing
researchers who publish in such journals, and even demotion of researchers that have
continually published in such journals). Every other measure taken that does not
address the problem at its root seems to be a ‘Band-Aid’ treatment, which in some
cases might exacerbate the situation.

¨ It might appear to the reader that your perception of the phenomenon of predatory
journals/publishing is due to the naiveté, innocence and ignorance of researchers.
However, this is clearly not the case. A number of studies on the topic (see for example,
the extensive study by Demir (2018; here)) show that a number of researchers are aware
of the predatory nature of journals and submit papers because of self-interest (academic
promotion, academic incentive and fear of job loss, or loss of grant money), while others
submit to them due to failure to publish in reputable journals. It is true that
inexperienced researchers might be duped (i.e., are unaware of this phenomenon and
become ‘prey’), but the view that this might be a significant percentage of cases seems
to be naïve. The principle of Supply and Demand clearly plays a role. There are a number
of incentives to publish quantity and not quality, which drives this industry. These issues
are not discussed in any sufficient manner in the current manuscript. It is important to
clarify early in the Introduction that these suggestions are only for unaware and
inexperienced researchers, and not for the researchers that are deliberately submitting
to these journals for self-promotion. If this is not clarified, many topics discussed in the
current manuscript might be considered as ‘ways to get away with murder’. I believe that
your intentions are honest here (and not that you are trying to legitimize predatory
publishing) but this needs to be made unequivocally clear from the beginning. In order
for the reader not to second guess your intentions, it is important to have a clear
sentence stating that you do not condone such a behavior when it is done deliberately.

Page 3 of 13

The study by Demir (2018; here) is, in my view, informative and interesting.

Senior Science Editor’s Comments on
Language and Paper Structure

Are the research implications clearly mentioned? If they are mentioned, are they are
sound? If they are not mentioned, what tips should the author follow?
The current manuscript is not a research article. Some suggestions to combat the problem
of predatory publishing (and ways to restore some credibility of authors) are offered. The
majority of suggestions offered seem sound.

Peer Reviewer's Comments .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Are the concluding statements clear, and do they mention the contributions, limitations,
and next steps for other researchers in the field?
The concluding remarks are clear, and the contributions are clearly stated. Since this is not
a research article there are no limitations that should be explicitly stated.

9.

Is the research design appropriate? What are the gaps, and what should be done to fill
the gaps?

Senior Science Editor’s Comments on Language and Paper Structure .................................................................................................................................. 9
Senior Science Editor’s and Managing Editor’s Comments on the Paper’s Journal Readiness ..............................................................................11

1.

This question does not apply to the current manuscript, since this was not a research
article.

Overall, the intended meaning was clear in every section, but the writing was often
informal and sometimes wordy. Most of the revisions were made to individual sentences
(rather than substantial changes to entire paragraphs or sections) to provide a more
appropriate and authoritative tone and to make passages more succinct. As mentioned in
the comments, please do not hesitate to contact me between rounds of editing if you have
any questions about a revision. Most changes were made to formalize the tone, but there
were too many revisions for me to provide an explanation for each one. However, I would
be happy to respond to any concerns or questions you may have.

10. Is the research methodology sound and relevant to the field?
Same as above. However, as pointed by the language editor, a brief discussion of how the
suggestions were drawn (through discussions, thinking carefully etc.) could be offered for
the reader. A statement on these being personal opinions that might help with limiting the
problem could also be offered for the reader.
11.

Does the data appear accurate, and has it been interpreted appropriately? Flag cases of
insufficient or insignificant data with the author.
This manuscript is not a research article. Thus, this question does not apply.

12. Should the author get their data verified by a statistician or submit analyzed datasets to
the journal?
Same as above.
13. Does the journal accept this article type?
MDPI Publications publishes only one type of original research: Articles. The current
manuscript falls well within this type.
14. Does the research in this article lie within the target journal’s scope?
Publications aims to publish articles related to all aspects of scholarly publication and
culture, including issues relating to peer review, open access, research integrity and
publication ethics. The current manuscript falls well within the journal’s scope.

How was the paper's overall language quality prior to editing?

2.

What were the top 3 recurring grammar and language issues found and edited for
native tone?
(1) Although ending a sentence with a preposition—or using a preposition without a
complete prepositional phrase—is common in spoken English and casual writing, it is
technically grammatically incorrect. Prepositions are words that describe the literal or
figurative position of one thing relative to another. A preposition typically should be used as
the first word of a prepositional phrase.
Commonly used prepositions include of, in, around, throughout, within, among, over, and
between. They are used in phrases that clarify the relationship between the corresponding
sentence items. For example, “this site is a point of interest,” “tell the story from the
beginning,” “we were sitting around the table,” “we monitored participants’ heart rates
throughout the process,” “the subjects could be recruited only within the designated area,”
“the consensus among our colleagues,” “most of the patients were over the age of 70,” ”the
ball must stay between the lines.”
Example from the original text: “Authors then may realize that the journal they submitted
to is predatory.
In the example sentence from the text, the preposition “to” is used alone, rather than as a
prepositional phrase.

Page 8 of 13

Page 9 of 13

Page 4 of 13

Example from the original text: “While predatory journals are in a sense helping to deter
publication bias in that they publish study articles regardless of the results, the problem lies
in the credibility of the results.”

4.

“The second-person point of view uses pronouns that refer to the reader. These are as
follows:
You
Your
Yours
This point of view is usually used in the context of providing instructions or advice, such as
in “how to” manuals or recipe books. The reason behind using the second person is to
engage the reader. For example:
You will want to buy a turkey that is large enough to feed your extended family. Before
cooking it, you must wash it first thoroughly with cold water.
Although this is a good technique for giving instructions, it is not appropriate in academic
or scientific writing.”
Does the paper adhere to the target journal's language preference?

¨ One interesting philosophical dilemma that your manuscript hints on, but does not
discuss in any sufficient manner, is the trade-off between punishing clearly unethical and
malevolent behavior, but at the same time being lenient for ‘first-time offenders’ that
might have made a mistake due to ignorance or naiveté (not deliberately). On one hand,
not reinforcing (and even punishing) continuous deliberate cheating (i.e., publishing
many studies in predatory journals) is very important in order to cure the problem. On
the other hand, it is unfair to severely punish researchers who have done one (or two)
such mistakes due to ignorance. This dilemma is a very interesting one, and I would love
to hear some of your thoughts on this.

5.

¨ Some practical issues with some of the recommendations are not explored or discussed
in more detail. You discuss post publication peer review, which is an interesting point,
but you fail to discuss any practical difficulties with such an approach. Software
development might be more clear-cut than actual scientific endeavors (e.g., if a software
does not work properly, has a bug, does not do what it is supposed to do etc. vs. a less
than optimal statistical analysis, realistic/unrealistic hypotheses formation,
interpretations of complex results concerning complex phenomena like human
interactions). Put simply, the scientific endeavor and the pursuit of truth is much more
‘blurry’ and more difficult epistemologically than other endeavors. Moreover, scientists
publish a number of articles each year. If for example, a study was published 2 years ago
and the scientist has published 2 more studies (and working on a third one) how would
he/she be able to follow whether someone has made a valid criticism of the first study?
Will he/she be responsible to follow this constantly? What happens if the scientist has 20
such published studies (and another 5 studies under review and working on another
study)? How will the scientist be able (even though might be willing) to address every
single one of these criticisms made over the years. Would the journal take the
responsibility to notify the author if a valid criticism has been made? If so, how might the
journal decide this (will they send it to external reviewers? Would the editorial board
decide this?). A more clear discussion of some of these practical issues, and an exact

Senior Science Editor’s and Managing Editor’s
Comments on the Paper’s Journal Readiness

What types of changes were made for improvements to paper flow and how has the
paper's readability improved because of these?

Keywords are required with the Abstract. I used the MeSHonDemand app with your article
to find appropriate keywords, which I added as suggested text. Please revise this list as you
deem appropriate. Some reference list items are not cited in the text.

1.

Also, as mentioned earlier, you may need to add some details as to your process in
preparing this article (defer to he scientific review for guidance).
2.

Please note this important information from the journal about the article in the template
form:
“Disclaimer: Usage of these templates is exclusively intended for submission to the journal for peerreview, and strictly limited to this purpose and it cannot be used for posting online on preprint servers
or other websites.”

4.

Does the paper present novel ideas or build on the research published in the target
journal?
As mentioned above, the study presents a number of novel and interesting ideas. MDPI
Publications has recently published 2 studies on the broader topic (see here and here), but
the current manuscript presents a different point of view and one that might be of interest
to the target journal.

5.

Is the research rationale sound? (is the reason for conducting the research explained
clearly in the paper?)
The current study is not a research article. However, the rationale for this manuscript is
overall sound and interesting (although I might disagree with specific points), and most
aspects of the topic are discussed in an adequate manner.

6.

Is the literature review complete and which other papers can the author cite?
The literature review is adequate. A number of potential studies on the topic that could be
consulted and discussed in more detail include:
•

The seminal paper by Ioannidis (2005; here)

•

Moher et al. (2017; here) which provides useful information on the broader topic and
some useful comparisons of the quality of studies published in potential predatory
journals compared to the quality of studies published in reputable journals.

•

In the final paragraph of the Introduction where you mention that you will not
address ways to avoid submitting to predatory journals, you could refer the reader to
the paper by Culley (2018; here), which discusses the topic in more detail.
Page 7 of 13

4.

Is a conflict of interest statement provided? If not, alert the author to do so and explain
why.
Yes.

5.

Has a data availability statement been provided? If not, alert the author to do so and
explain why.
Yes.

6.

Has the corresponding author been identified for journal interaction?
Yes

7.

Are all the references, tables, and figures present?
The reference list was excluded; no tables or figures were provided.

8.

Are the references in the right format and the figures and tables labelled appropriately?
The reference list was excluded; no tables or figures were provided.

Does the paper need to be blinded for review, and has it been blinded?
No, it does not need to be blinded. Presumably, the editor reads it first and then removes
the title page and/or blinds parts of the text, as needed, before passing on to reviewers.

What were the major formatting requirements of the journal for this paper, and what
changes have been made to meet these requirements?

If you do add any additional paragraphs or sections with headings, use the style function of
Word to ensure the format is consistent with the rest of the article. Right-click on an
existing heading of the same level or a text paragraph and then click “styles” to see the
described style to apply to the new content.

The paper is interesting and a number of novel ideas are presented. The suggestions
proposed might require some clarification or elaboration, but overall the manuscript is
thought-provoking and is likely to promote further discussion on the topic.

Does the paper need to be split for submission?
For submission to the journal Publications, only the cover letter is submitted as a separate
file.

Does the target journal have a word count limit, and does the paper adhere to this limit
after editing?

The target journal provides a Word template for authors. I verified that the manuscript
matches the template in every detail relevant to your report article for the upcoming
Special Issue "Publication Ethics and Research Integrity" by pasting the text into the
template before applying any editing revisions to the text. Because you are submitting a
report article rather than a research study article, not all of the journal’s normal
requirements apply to your manuscript.

Does the paper present novel ideas/a novel direction with regard to the field of
research?

Page 6 of 13

There is no stated word limit, although the journal encourages authors to be concise.
6.

3.

¨ In one or two instances I have not been able to retrieve the articles you cited. These
instances have been flagged for you in a form of a comment in the manuscript.

The content does flow well. It is logical and easy to follow.

The journal does not mention a preference for British or American English. The use of
American English in word choice, spelling, and punctuation is consistent and correct
throughout the paper (after revisions are accepted from this round of editing). As there is
very little information about the Special Edition in terms of instructions to authors, it is not
clear which standards for research articles published in regular issues of the journal are
applicable or not applicable for this Special Issue report. Therefore, I assumed that the
Page 10 of 13

¨ Some statement should be made on the manner that you thought these suggestions. A
brief paragraph explaining that these are suggestions that have been drawn from past
experiences, discussions with colleagues, from previous articles, or just by you thinking
and brainstorming on the topic, would help the reader better understand your point of
view and how you reached these conclusions/suggestions.

What details or documents are missing in the paper submission package based on the
target journal's formatting and submission requirements?

You may need to add an additional section (perhaps a Methods section) to the article and
add a sentence to the abstract to explain how you prepared this information, such as
performing a literature review or interviewing published authors. You may also need to
report how the information was analyzed to glean the final recommendations you present
in the paper.

Revised text: “While predatory journals are, in a sense, helping to deter publication bias in
that they publish study articles regardless of the results, the problem lies in the credibility
of the results
(3) Avoid using the second person “you” in academic writing. The first-person voice (I, we)
can be used for clarity in research papers, but speaking to the readers as “you” is still
considered too casual and, therefore, is inappropriate for formal writing. As described by
the Enago Academy webpage at https://www.enago.com/academy/we-vs-they-using-firstor-third-person-in-a-research-paper/:

Do the main ideas in the paper flow well? Was the flow of ideas/the main argument
natural?

¨ An interesting aspect, that is not mentioned at all in the current manuscript, is that some
of these suggestions might help journals that are not actually predatory but for some
reason have been classified as ‘predatory’ (e.g., due to being new, being sloppy or
incompetent, not having sufficient credibility to approach good experts etc.). This
possibility is worth exploring in more detail; assuming that these journals might be
honest it will help them improve their system but also salvage some lost credibility. This
could be explored and discussed further.

Some minor issues have been identified and are listed below for your consideration:

standards for formal tone, inclusive language, non-bias terminology, etc., should be
followed. The article was edited accordingly, with some changes made to ensure that the
writing is appropriately formal as an academic report.
3.

model of how this might work, might be helpful for the reader to understand the
suggestion you are proposing in a clearer and better way.
¨ Some statements made in the manuscript might require support from relevant
references (or a more thorough explanation on how you came to such conclusions).
Some of these instances have been flagged for you in a form of a comment in the
manuscript.

Minor issues (likely to be raised by the journal peer reviewer for consideration but not
cause rejection) and corresponding next steps the author should take.

Page 5 of 13

Revised text: “Authors then may realize that the journal to which they submitted their work
is predatory.”
(2) Commas are used to set off extraneous (nonessential) wording in a sentence to alert the
reader as to the grammatical construction of the sentence and avoid confusion. Use
commas to offset introductory phrases, transitional expressions, and parentheticals. When
an explanatory, nonessential phrase is added and is not set off by commas, the words may
read as part of the ongoing subject or predicate in such a way that the sentence loses its
intended meaning.

2.

¨ The section discussing the pre-submission suggestions might raise some discussion and
certain questions from reviewers. It is not clear to me why you would discuss these presubmission steps (which are sensible for any type of article before being submitted to
any type of journal), when it is clear that the best way to starve predatory journals would
be to stop submitting to them (and paying them to publish research). Thus, it is
important for researchers to learn how to recognize and avoid predatory journals (i.e.,
consulting Beal’s list and other such lists, being adequately supervised by experienced
researchers, consulting librarians etc.). You state in the manuscript that you will not
discuss ways to avoid submitting to predatory journals, but then discuss ways to improve
credibility of the study before submitting to a predatory journal. This argument does not
seem to be very coherent or cogent. It is similar to saying that in order to not be ridiculed
for visiting an astrologer (i.e., loss of credibility) it would be best to visit a doctor first
(salvage some credibility). The whole point of predatory journals is to make money and
not to publish reliable and valid scientific observations. I could agree with you in case a
journal is not clearly a predatory journal, where those steps might salvage the reputation
of both the manuscript and the journal. However, this might not deter actual predatory
publishing and even in some cases legitimize it, i.e., some of these measures might make
it much easier for malicious agents (researchers and predatory journals) to gain
undeserved credibility; e.g., a researcher preregisters a protocol of a study, which in
theory is very rigorous (but fabricated in reality) and then after being peer-reviewed,
approved and published, submits the main study at a predatory journal. The protocol is
‘legitimate and credible’ but the actual study is fake. This will result in a legitimization of a
clearly unethical study. Moreover, some of these measures might make publishing even
more difficult and time consuming, which might also lead more researchers to submit

¨ It is not very clear whether your suggestions concern the individual level (the authors’
responsibility) or the institutional level (the faculties and universities, the publishing
companies and generally the whole publishing process). It is suggested in the
manuscript that most of these steps concern the individual author (e.g., “therefore, to offset
the impacts of this problem, authors must compensate for that function somehow.” Or “Here are some
ways for researchers to address this important issue at each stage in the publishing process “).
However, some of the specific suggestions might be ineffective at the individual level
and might require changes at the institutional level in order for them to be somewhat
effective. Such a distinction is not made clearly throughout the manuscript, and it would

Page 2 of 13

8.

Major issues (likely to be raised by the journal peer reviewer and cause rejection) and
corresponding next steps the author should take.
There are very few major concerns with the current manuscript. These are listed below for
your consideration.

Overall, the manuscript is clear and the majority of arguments made therein are
logically valid. The title and abstract provide a very good summary of the main
manuscript. The topic is explained in an adequate manner for the non-expert reader
and the solutions offered seem valid and in most instances are clearly explained. Below
you will find the main issues that I have been able to identify, and when possible some
suggestions are offered for you to address these issues. I wish you the best of luck with
your submission.

•

Senior Science Editor’s and Managing Editor’s Comments on the Paper’s Journal Readiness .............................................................................. 7

1.

In the current manuscript, it seems that you approach this topic in a lenient manner.
However, I understand your point of view, and I agree with you that not all research
published in predatory journals is of poor-quality, not all authors are dishonest, and not
all blacklisted journals are actually ‘predatory’. I also agree that some measures should
be taken to salvage decent studies and the reputation of honest, but inexperienced
researchers that have made a mistake and have published in such journals, if retraction
of such studies is not possible. It is also important to salvage the reputation of journals
that do not deserve to be labelled ‘predatory’ (i.e., being very ‘young’ journals that have
not had time to establish credibility or their poor quality is due to incompetence and
sloppiness and not due to malevolence).

7.

Senior Science Editor’s Comments on Language and Paper Structure .................................................................................................................................. 5

(deliberately) to predatory journals. Take for example the current manuscript where you
submitted to Editage. It takes longer to submit it to Editage, send you back the report,
revise the manuscript, resubmit it to us, revise it again (if necessary) and then submit it to
a journal, which will also take time to review it, and still reject the manuscript (despite our
best efforts to help you publish). If the incentive to ‘publish or perish’ is kept, then most
researchers will prefer to take the whole process to either low quality journals (Q4) or
predatory journals.

3.

Have all the formatting guidelines, including the right file format for submission, been
addressed? Mention any that have not and why they have not been addressed.
The template provided by the journal was applied to your paper. Some of the normally
required sections do not apply because you are not submitting a full research manuscript,
review, or case study.
Please note that the reference list must be reordered and numbered to reflect the order
the sources were first cited in the text. The in-text citations must be changed to numbers in
square brackets, e.g., [1] or [2,3], or [4–6].
Since the references are excluded from the edit, I have not reordered the references in the
list and have accordingly not revised the in-text citations, as the numbered citations would
not correspond with the order of the references in the list. Please ensure that the reference
list and the corresponding in-text citations are formatted per the journal requirements
prior to submission. Please feel free to get back to me should you require my assistance
with these changes.
Have ethical and financial declarations been provided? If not, alert the author to do so
and explain why.
Yes.

Page 11 of 13

Page 12 of 13

Page 13 of 13

・有料の投稿前査読サービスを受けておく
こっちのリプライ
October 28, 2020
Dear Editors in Editage:
Thank you very much for your fast, thoughtful, and constructive comments regarding my manuscript
titled, “How to Protect the Credibility of Articles Published in Predatory Journals.” I revised the
manuscript based on the comments. Please take a look at the individual responses to the main
comments below. This pre-submission peer review has made it very clear to me the problems and areas
for improvement in my manuscript. I would like to express my sincere thanks to the reviewers.

Comments & Replies to Peer Reviewer
1-1
It might appear to the reader that your perception of the phenomenon of predatory journals/publishing
is due to the naiveté, innocence and ignorance of researchers. However, this is clearly not the case. A
number of studies on the topic (see for example, the extensive study by Demir (2018; here)) show that
a number of researchers are aware of the predatory nature of journals and submit papers because of
self-interest (academic promotion, academic incentive and fear of job loss, or loss of grant money),
while others submit to them due to failure to publish in reputable journals. It is true that inexperienced
researchers might be duped (i.e., are unaware of this phenomenon and become ‘prey’), but the view
that this might be a significant percentage of cases seems to be naïve. The principle of Supply and
Demand clearly plays a role. There are a number of incentives to publish quantity and not quality,
which drives this industry. These issues are not discussed in any sufficient manner in the current
manuscript. It is important to clarify early in the Introduction that these suggestions are only for
unaware and inexperienced researchers, and not for the researchers that are deliberately submitting
to these journals for self-promotion. If this is not clarified, many topics discussed in the current
manuscript might be considered as ‘ways to get away with murder’. I believe that your intentions are
honest here (and not that you are trying to legitimize predatory publishing) but this needs to be made
unequivocally clear from the beginning. In order for the reader not to second guess your intentions, it
is important to have a clear sentence stating that you do not condone such a behavior when it is done
deliberately.
Reply
I appreciate your important comments on the stance of this manuscript. Your concerns here are well
understood. Someone who strategically uses predatory journals to pad their achievements is clearly
unethical, and personally speaking I am willing to impose criminal penalties for such misconduct.
However, the issue of predatory authors using predatory journals has already been discussed in a
number of other literature as you said, and this paper does not want to deal with that. However, I
thought it would help the reader to understand the nature of this paper by clarifying my attitude towards
predatory journals and predatory authors, so I have added an explanation of that in the last paragraph
of the introduction.

これらを全部公開しておいた
It is not very clear whether your suggestions concern the individual level (the authors’ responsibility)
or the institutional level (the faculties and universities, the publishing companies and generally the
whole publishing process). It is suggested in the manuscript that most of these steps concern the
individual author (e.g., “therefore, to offset the impacts of this problem, authors must compensate for
that function somehow.” Or “Here are some ways for researchers to address this important issue at
each stage in the publishing process “). However, some of the specific suggestions might be ineffective
at the individual level and might require changes at the institutional level in order for them to be
somewhat effective. Such a distinction is not made clearly throughout the manuscript, and it would
benefit the reader if this is discussed in more detail. Such instances where this might require your
attention have been flagged for you in a form of a comment in the manuscript. Let’s say for example,
that I have submitted to a predatory journal (without knowing it) and the manuscript gets accepted. I
request additional reviewers and an additional round of reviewing. The journal rejects this request and
asks me to sign the forms to publish the research. What can I do then? How might my request for
further rounds (or reviewers) become public, if the predatory journal refuses to make it public? I could
add my correspondence with the journal in my Linkedin page or in my CV, but will this be enough for
everyone that retrieves the study to know that there has been such a request? The same applies for the
Open review suggestion; i.e., I request an open review but the journal rejects this request. What then?
If this is done at an institutional level (that all journals are forced to make such requests public), then
it might work better. However, predatory journals have been known to go to extreme lengths to appear
legitimate (fake reviews, fake reviewers, fake citations etc.), and a measure like that might still be
exploited. That is why I stated above that some of these measures seem to be ‘Band-Aid’ treatments,
which do not cure the actual problem. The same applies to some of the suggestions concerning the
After-acceptance phase; where some of these suggestions might work for honest (but of poor-quality)
journals that might have been classified as ‘predatory’ (individual level). However, actual predatory
journals will never accept such suggestions, or might not care much to implement them (similarly to
other charlatans), because they will always depend on researchers that put their own self-interest first
and not the scientific interest, as well as the unaware (‘prey’) researchers that might be duped. Some
of these suggestions might work better at the institutional level (e.g., where all journals are forced to
have a post-publication peer review).
Reply
I think this is an important comment on the basis of this paper.
Hmmm, indeed. I have not ventured to discuss intervention at the institutional level this time. The
reason is that it is very difficult to achieve that at the moment. It is also because it would be so powerful,
if achieved, that it would be a panacea for everything, so there is almost no point in discussing it here.
Assuming intervention at the institutional level, for example, the apparent perfection of the world could
be achieved by making retractions and refunds easier to achieve, by hiring exclusive reviewers for
their papers, by firing employees who use predatory journals, and so on. But for a variety of reasons,
we have a long way to go to get to that future. In addition, there is little point in writing a paper just to
wish for it. Until that future arrives, we need to protect ourselves on an individual level. That is exactly
the purpose of this paper.
However, it is worth arguing that intervention at the institutional level would reduce the problem, so I
have added it in the last paragraph of the measures.

1-2

- Some statement should be made on the manner that you thought these suggestions. A brief paragraph
explaining that these are suggestions that have been drawn from past experiences, discussions with
colleagues, from previous articles, or just by you thinking and brainstorming on the topic, would help
the reader better understand your point of view and how you reached these conclusions/suggestions.
- One interesting philosophical dilemma that your manuscript hints on, but does not discuss in any
sufficient manner, is the trade-off between punishing clearly unethical and malevolent behavior, but at
the same time being lenient for ‘first-time offendersʼ that might have made a mistake due to ignorance
or naiveté (not deliberately). On one hand, not reinforcing (and even punishing) continuous deliberate
cheating (i.e., publishing many studies in predatory journals) is very important in order to cure the
problem. On the other hand, it is unfair to severely punish researchers who have done one (or two)
such mistakes due to ignorance. This dilemma is a very interesting one, and I would love to hear some
of your thoughts on this.
Reply
I must say that the circumstances that led me to consider this story are very personal. As you have
repeatedly stated, it is extremely unfair that there are researchers who pad their achievements by
publishing papers in predatory journals to gain advantage in job opportunities and promotions. I have
seen such practices in others with my own eyes. One colleague of mine is very angry about such
practices. So this is a topic that often comes up between me and my colleague. And it finally led me to
start a research group called the Special Interest Group on the Credibility of Psychology (see the
acknowledgements section). That is when I began to gather information and debate about open science,
crowdsourcing, mega collaborations, and academic publishing and report on it as a paper. This paper
is one of the results of that process. I do not think this is a very useful story…, but I can only explain
it this way because the facts are not originally interesting. I have responded as a comment on the
manuscript as to how I would or should introduce this into the paper.
The colleague always says that it could happen that one could accidentally get a paper published in a
predatory journal by mistake up to the first time, but they would notice something wrong in its peer
review process, so if they publish a paper in that journal a second time, it is definitely a deliberate act
and it disqualifies the person as a researcher. I am of a similar opinion to that, although it is debatable
whether a second publication is borderline.

1-4

criticism of the first study? Will he/she be responsible to follow this constantly? What happens if the
scientist has 20 such published studies (and another 5 studies under review and working on another
study)? How will the scientist be able (even though might be willing) to address every single one of
these criticisms made over the years. Would the journal take the responsibility to notify the author if a
valid criticism has been made? If so, how might the journal decide this (will they send it to external
reviewers? Would the editorial board decide this?). A more clear discussion of some of these practical
issues, and an exact model of how this might work, might be helpful for the reader to understand the
suggestion you are proposing in a clearer and better way.
Reply
Thank you for your question about post-publication peer review. Many of those things are explained
in the papers cited there (Ikeda et al., 2020). It has been pointed out in the peer review of the paper
that there are many practical difficulties as well, but we would try to make it work effectively by
merging it with the current system. The notification issue you pointed out can be solved in several
ways. One would be to set up a system that automatically notifies authors of posts. Readers, too, could
be notified when they follow the original paper. This is a common system on social networking sites
and very easy to implement. Another suggestion would be to have a dedicated comment submission
section in each journal. Our ideal commentary system is that of Behavioral and Brain Sciences, but
even if it is difficult to implement in other journals, it would be relatively easy to have a similar section.
Your first concern is a more difficult issue. Indeed, the scientific effort is not necessarily for a definite
solution or demand. Therefore, it is certainly unclear how well the post-publication update will work.
But that's why I recognize the great importance of leaving room for papers to be updated after
publication. The blurrier the destination is, the more we need to know exactly where we are at this
point in time to even decide which direction to go in. For science as well, the literature that comprises
it must continue to be updated to its proper state. Moreover, it is the same for both software and papers
that released material can have initial failures. Therefore, unless the latter has a route to deal with it, it
is obvious that knowledge will not be properly accumulated, and science cannot be self-correcting. It
is common sense that peer review is not a perfect error detector. Effective error detectors are a large
number of people, including early-career researchers, who were not involved in pre-submission peer
review (Vazire, 2020). The error detector alerts will be triggered via post-publication peer review.
Vazire, S. (2020). A toast to the error detectors. Nature, 577(7788), 9. http://doi.org/10.1038/d41586019-03909-2

1-5
Some practical issues with some of the recommendations are not explored or discussed in more detail.
You discuss post publication peer review, which is an interesting point, but you fail to discuss any
practical difficulties with such an approach. Software development might be more clear-cut than actual
scientific endeavors (e.g., if a software does not work properly, has a bug, does not do what it is
supposed to do etc. vs. a less than optimal statistical analysis, realistic/unrealistic hypotheses
formation, interpretations of complex results concerning complex phenomena like human interactions).
Put simply, the scientific endeavor and the pursuit of truth is much more ‘blurry’ and more difficult
epistemologically than other endeavors. Moreover, scientists publish a number of articles each year.
If for example, a study was published 2 years ago and the scientist has published 2 more studies (and
working on a third one) how would he/she be able to follow whether someone has made a valid

1-3
The section discussing the pre-submission suggestions might raise some discussion and certain
questions from reviewers. It is not clear to me why you would discuss these pre-submission steps (which
are sensible for any type of article before being submitted to any type of journal), when it is clear that
the best way to starve predatory journals would be to stop submitting to them (and paying them to
publish research). Thus, it is important for researchers to learn how to recognize and avoid predatory
journals (i.e., consulting Beal’s list and other such lists, being adequately supervised by experienced
researchers, consulting librarians etc.). You state in the manuscript that you will not discuss ways to
avoid submitting to predatory journals, but then discuss ways to improve credibility of the study before
submitting to a predatory journal. This argument does not seem to be very coherent or cogent. It is
similar to saying that in order to not be ridiculed for visiting an astrologer (i.e., loss of credibility) it
would be best to visit a doctor first (salvage some credibility). The whole point of predatory journals
is to make money and not to publish reliable and valid scientific observations. I could agree with you
in case a journal is not clearly a predatory journal, where those steps might salvage the reputation of
both the manuscript and the journal. However, this might not deter actual predatory publishing and
even in some cases legitimize it, i.e., some of these measures might make it much easier for malicious
agents (researchers and predatory journals) to gain undeserved credibility; e.g., a researcher
preregisters a protocol of a study, which in theory is very rigorous (but fabricated in reality) and then
after being peer-reviewed, approved and published, submits the main study at a predatory journal. The
protocol is ‘legitimate and credible’ but the actual study is fake. This will result in a legitimization of
a clearly unethical study. Moreover, some of these measures might make publishing even more difficult
and time consuming, which might also lead more researchers to submit (deliberately) to predatory
journals. Take for example the current manuscript where you submitted to Editage. It takes longer to
submit it to Editage, send you back the report, revise the manuscript, resubmit it to us, revise it again
(if necessary) and then submit it to a journal, which will also take time to review it, and still reject the
manuscript (despite our best efforts to help you publish). If the incentive to ‘publish or perish’ is kept,
then most researchers will prefer to take the whole process to either low quality journals (Q4) or
predatory journals.
Reply
I understand your doubts on the consistency. I think I already mentioned in the manuscript that
practices such as pre-registration are only researcher etiquette and should be habitual (I may not have
been clear on that...). It's on a par with knowledge of predatory journals and how to avoid them. This
latter has been prominently and frequently noted in papers discussing the predatory journal issue, but
there has been no mention of pre-registration and other measures introduced here to combat predatory
journals. This is a strong motivation for me to create this sub-section. No researcher knows everything,
of course, so even those who have made pre-registration a habit may not know about predatory
journals, and vice versa. Here I want to support the revival of the paper in both patterns. But, of course,
it would be ideal to know both pre-registration and predatory journals at the same time, and this should
be thoroughly discussed in the field of researcher education. Yet, that is a bit beyond the scope of this
paper.

1-6
An interesting aspect, that is not mentioned at all in the current manuscript, is that some of these
suggestions might help journals that are not actually predatory but for some reason have been
classified as ‘predatory’ (e.g., due to being new, being sloppy or incompetent, not having sufficient
credibility to approach good experts etc.). This possibility is worth exploring in more detail; assuming
that these journals might be honest it will help them improve their system but also salvage some lost
credibility. This could be explored and discussed further.
Reply
I agree that it is interesting. But I do not have enough information at hand to fully discuss it yet. A

footnote might be able to suggest this possibility. I have included this story in a footnote in the form
of a suggestion from you. Thank you.

Others
Various other minor comments and literature information were also very helpful. These helped me to
further improve the quality of the manuscript.

Comments & Replies to Senior Science Editor
2-1
You may need to add an additional section (perhaps a Methods section) to the article and add a
sentence to the abstract to explain how you prepared this information, such as performing a literature
review or interviewing published authors. You may also need to report how the information was
analyzed to glean the final recommendations you present in the paper.
Reply
Thank you so much for your detailed edits and comments. As I answered in the manuscript, I kind of
understand your recommendation. But I am not sure how it should be reflected in this manuscript. I
did not do any "research" in this paper, so it seems odd to create a methods section. As for the story, I
have one in this letter (1-4), but I do not know how to insert it in the middle of this paper to fit in with
the overall tone and logic. Any suggestion or edit using the text 1-4 would be truly welcome.

Comments & Replies to Senior Science Editor and Managing Editor
Reply
Your suggestions regarding formatting etc. are very accurate. Thank you very much.

The manuscript has been revised according to the suggestions and comments. Once again, I
thank the reviewers for their very fast, thoughtful, and constructive comments.

Sincerely,
Yuki Yamada, Ph.D.
Faculty of Arts and Science, Kyushu University,
744 Motooka, Nishi-ku, Fukuoka 819-0395, Japan
E-mail: [email protected]
TEL & FAX: +81-92-802-5837

Round 1 もちろんこれも公開 ・オープン査読

・結局， が捕食的かどうかというと，少なくとも私が体験する 限りでは，普通だった。実はAPCも無料で，何一つ捕食要素はなかった。 ・しかし結論を下すには他の様々な要素も考慮しないといけないしデータ が足りないので，保留せざるを得ない。 ・少なくとも，オープンサイエンスは大事，てのは言える。

では，若手はどうすればいいのか？ ・若手の方は特に難しい時代ですが，今回のお話は若手だけの問題で もないと思います。 ・少なくとも評価形態が変わらないと，変化への順応のためのチャレ ンジすらできないですよね。 ・学会によるサポートの検討と，それを訴えかける若手からの動きの 両方が起こらないとなかなか変わらないかもしれません ・まずは若手同士で集まって，やれることから試してみるのがいいん じゃないかと個人的には思います

まとめ ・近年おそろしいスピードで出版システムが変わっていっている ・それに付いて行くも行かないも自由だが，取りうる選択肢は多い方が 良いかもしれない ・様々な雑誌での経験談をみんなで持ち寄る場があると良いのかもしれ ない。今回のような場が。 今回の資料は「山田祐樹 心理学」でグーグル検索して上の方に出る 個人ページのトップからアクセスできるようにしています ご清聴ありがとうございました