Transparency Index in Science Publishing

The blog Retraction Watch, brought to my attention by On The Media, has advocated a "Transparency Index" for publishers of science journals. Retraction Watch, authored by Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky, addresses the problem of transparency in content selection. As the authors put it, the idea is to encourage editors and publishers to share how they make publishing decisions. Marcus and Oransky authored a call to action in the August 2012 issue of The Scientist. 

The calls to action cover not only issues surrounding errors leading to retractions, but other aspects as well, including:

The journal’s review protocol, including whether or not its articles are peer-reviewed; the typical number of reviewers, time for review, manuscript acceptance rate, and details of the appeals process

Whether the journal requires that underlying data are made available

Whether the journal uses plagiarism detection software and reviews figures for evidence of image manipulation

Names and expertise of editorial board members 

Requirements for conflict of interest disclosure 

Costs for authors 

Costs to readers for single article / issue 

Email address for Editor-in-Chief that is monitored and responded to

Marcus and Oransky called for others to respond to these suggestions, but the published responses appear to be few and generally limited to the retraction issue, rather than full transparency of the editorial process. 

EFF, Public Information Decry Inaction on Intellectual Property Treaty Disclosures

A lightly discussed agreement known as ACTA, or Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, has been the subject of criticism by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Information. In a joint press release, the non-profits report that more than a thousand pages of content regarding ACTA are still being withheld.

The release of this information is ostensibly under the purview of the US Trade Representative (USTR). EFF and Public Knowledge (PN) filed for this release under FOIA in September 2008. This apparent indifference to public process is odd in light of what the EFF/PN press release calls the "official summary" provided by USTR. The USTR's official summary of the process released last month, the EFF International Affairs Director claims, "recognized the lack of transparency so far while doing nothing to broaden stakeholder input or engage public debate. The radical proposals being considered under the Internet provisions deserve a more transparent process with greater public participation."

There are several potentially far-reaching and worrisome regulations under consideration in ACTA:

• ACTA could establish far-reaching customs regulations over Internet traffic in the guise of anti-counterfeiting measures
• Some multi-national IP industry companies have publicly requested that ISPs be required to engage in filtering of their customers' Internet communications for potentially copyright-infringing material
• Possible mandatory disclosure of personal information about alleged copyright infringers
• Possible "Three Strikes" policies requiring ISPs to automatically terminate customers' Internet access upon a repeat allegation of copyright infringement.