
|
 |
FORTHCOMING EASE CONFERENCE
Tenth EASE General Assembly and Conference
Integrity in Science Communication
16-19 September 2009
Pisa, Italy
Abstract submission is now open
Download the First Circular for details, to register your interest in attendance and/or participation, or to submit an abstract
The deadline for abstract submission is 30 September 2008
For
abstract submissions, expressions of interest in participation as a speaker or chairman, and for further information, please enter your details in the First Circular and send to:
Mrs Sheila Evered
EASE Secretariat
PO Box 6159
Reading
RG19 9DE
UK
Phone/Fax: +44 (0)118 970 0322
secretary@ease.org.uk
Download the Editorial (pdf) by Arjan Polderman, EASE President, on "Integrity in science communication" from the August 2008 issue of
European Science Editing
PAST EASE CONFERENCES
2006 Krakow, Poland
2003 Bath, UK
2003 Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada (joint meeting with AESE)
2000 Tours, France
1998 Washington, DC, USA (joint meeting with CBE and AESE)
1997 Helsinki, Finland
1994 Budapest, Hungary
1991 Oxford, UK
1989 Ottawa, Canada (joint meeting with CBE and AESE)
1988 Basel, Switzerland
1985 Holmenkollen, Norway
1982 Pau, France
1 Cultural approaches to accessing and archiving scientific data
2 Cultural effects of impact factors
3 Cultural consequences of electronic publishing
4 Cultural differences in text editing and writing
5 The culture of science translation
6 Communicating science to society
Post-conference workshops: 19th June 2006
* * * *
14.00
AGM, General Assembly
15.30
- 17.00
Plenary One: Cultural approaches to accessing and archiving scientific data
Chairman: Roderick Hunt
a)
Lost data or good archives. Cliff Morgan, Vice-President, Planning & Development, Director, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., UK
Thanks
to the growth of electronic storage media, scientific data can be
preserved in much greater volume than hitherto. But has this trend
brought an improvement in, or even an equalling of, the long-term
security of such data? Will the data now stored only in electronic form
become irretrievably lost as the technology improves further, e.g. who
can now read a 5.25-inch floppy disk? How can editors and librarians
work together to ensure the permanence of data formats and media, thus
keeping scientific information available to future generations?
b)
Inaccessible science literature in Eastern Europe. Volodymyr Lysenko, Information School, University of Washington, Seattle, USA, and Drukarstvo journal, Ukraine
Most
of the past political barriers to the free international exchange of
science literature have now been removed. But the question still
remains as to whether the great wealth of science research results are
now truly available to all researchers. Are the archives of
highly-specialised, small journals from Eastern Europe now available to
researchers in the West, and vice versa? What should editors and
librarians be doing to complete the internationalisation of European
science?
17.30
Reception: at the Collegium Maius, five minutes walk from the Palac Larischa
* * * *
09.00
- 10.30
Plenary Two: Cultural consequences of impact factors
Chairman: Edward Towpik
a)
Selective Indexes. James Testa, Institute for Scientific Information
For
over 40 years the Institute for Scientific Information, and now Thomson
Scientific, has developed and maintained several multidisciplinary
citation indexes in the Web of Science. Scholarly journals form the
core collections of the three major components of the Web of Science,
which is comprehensive but not all-inclusive. For this reason, Thomson
dedicates significant resources to the selection of the most important
and influential scholarly journals for inclusion. I will describe the
Journal Selection Process used to achieve this goal, particularly with
regard to citation analysis and the role of the Impact Factor.
b)
Open Indexing: An innovative approach to indexation and delivery of bibliographic data. Mark R. Graczynski, Index Copernicus
Over
60 per cent of scientific information is published in small scholarly
journals, which are important vehicles for the dissemination of new
science. Many of these are published independently by universities or
research institutions, where a lack of resources, and editing and
publishing experience, may disadvantage them with the major
international indexing services, e.g. Medline or ISI. There is the
perception that decisions by these organisations are arbitrary, and may
condemn some journals to obscurity. Open Indexing, complementary to the
Open Access concept, is an innovative approach to the evaluation and
indexing of science information.
11.00
- 12.30
Submitted papers. Two parallel sessions chaired by Joan Marsh and Faith McLellan
14.00
- 15.30
Plenary Three: Cultural consequences of electronic publishing Chairman: Sir Iain Chalmers
a)
The Culture of Sharing - Open Access to Scientific Literature. Lars Björnshauge, University Librarian, Lund University Libraries, Lund, Sweden
Collaboration
is an essential element of research in which progress depends on the
sharing of knowledge and results. E-publishing technology has
fundamentally changed our capabilities to disseminate information,
offering vast possibilities for openness and sharing. On the other
hand, it offers equally vast possibilities for control of intellectual
property via sophisticated methods called Technical Protection Measures
and Digital Rights Management. I will address the conditions for
ownership of the collective scientific memory, as well as the problem
of defining an optimal balance between authors´ rights and content
owners´ rights. I will give examples of publisher/journal copyright
policies and of the two main roads to Open Access - the "golden" road
and the "green" road .
b)
Open peer-review in the electronic age. Erik Sandewall, Professor of Computer Science, Linköping University, Sweden
Traditionally,
journal papers have been reviewed anonymously: the authors do not know
who is commenting on their manuscript, although it can sometimes be
deduced - accurately or otherwise. Some journals have experimented with
open peer review, where the comments are signed. How does this affect
the review process? Do people choose their words more carefully if they
know they will be identified? Does this vary with discipline? Important
questions for journal editors and all involved in scientific research.
16.00-17.00
Panel discussion featuring all speakers from Plenary sessions 2 and 3. Chairman: Sir Iain Chalmers
20.00
- 22.00
Conference dinner at The Orangery, Dwor w Tomaszowice
09.00
- 10.30
Plenary Four: Cultural differences in text editing and writing
Chairman: Elisabeth Heseltine
a)
Western v. Eastern European Editing: Editors as Educators. Prof. Ana Marusic, Croatian Medical Journal, Zagreb University School of Medicine
Editing
in the Eastern Europe is also teaching - about all aspects of
scientific research. Writing and manuscript preparation are rarely
taught in the context of scientific or medical education in
post-communist countries in Southeast Europe. As editors of a medical
scientific journal published in English in a non-native English
speaking country, we learned that knowledge of scientific methodology
and scientific reporting is a necessary precondition for a successful
scientific publication. Editors and language professionals working with
authors from such scientific communities should be acquainted with the
basic rules of scientific reporting, including the four layers of a
manuscript - the
study quality, the
narrative, the
scientific reporting style, and finally
the language per se.
b)
Writing for Western and Eastern audiences. Andras Falus, Department of Genetics, Cell- and Immunobiology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary
There
are cultural differences between East and West in approaches to
scientific texts - both in writing and editing. I will compare the
Anglo-American approach with that in Eastern Europe, using my
experience in immunology and genomics. Do I approach a paper
differently when writing for a Hungarian journal than when writing for
a British or American one? Yes, although decreasingly so. Copy editors
and publishers need to be aware of these issues, which include the
order of authors and citation habits.
11.00 - 12.00
Submitted papers Chairman: Yateendra Joshi
12.00
Lunch
12.00
- 16.30
BELS examination at the Palac Larischa
* * * *
09.00-10.30
Plenary Five: The culture of science translation
Chairman: Arjan Polderman
a)
Editing science text translations: when to stop? Noah Hardy, Consultant, Paris, France
Expression
contributes to the meaning that emerges from a written text. A
translation must accurately reflect not only what the author meant, but
also how it was expressed. Even if the editor of a text also translates
it, and therefore has ready access to the original, it should be edited
as though it were a new original, since it must stand alone. The
content of a translation, as well as the emphasis applied to its
elements, should be the same as in the original; however, the syntax
and style will no doubt differ. Editing should stop when further
changes weaken rather than enhance the text. I will discuss whether
authors should write good text in their own language, which often has
no equivalent to modern scientific and technical vocabulary, or whether
it would be preferable for them to write in imperfect English, which
can then be edited? This simply amounts to helping the author to say
what he means.
b)
Translation for open-access journals. Hooman Momen, Editor, Bulletin of the World Health Organization, Acting Co-ordinator, WHO Press, Geneva, Switzerland
Authors
are encouraged to publish in English, considered to be the
international language of science. Publication in English has been
shown to favour citation and to increase the impact factors of
journals. Readers who are not native English speakers, however, often
prefer to receive information in their mother tongue as this
facilitates comprehension and retention. Significant output in
non-English languages may be ignored, resulting in a publication bias
in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Improvements in machine
translations, coupled with online publication, should provide
non-English authors with the opportunities to publish in their own
language. Standardized reporting and structured abstracts aid machine
translation and abstracting by indexing services. The main weapon to
overcome language barriers is quality.
Plenary Six: Communicating Science to Society
Chairman: Jenny Gretton
a)
Communicating science to researchers and practitioners: the role of systematic reviews. Mike Clarke, Director, UK Cochrane Centre; Professor of Clinical Epidemiology, University of Oxford
Science
progresses by being cumulative, practice improves by taking account of
good evidence: both need to keep up to date. In the health arena, many
tens of thousands of pieces of research are undertaken each year,
millions of articles are published, and tens of millions of pieces of
information are available to people planning new research and making
decisions about health care interventions. Keeping abreast of relevant
research when deciding about a new study or using a treatment is an
enormous task. For most decision makers, it is possible only through
access to systematic views, which have identified, appraised,
summarised and, where appropriate, combined the relevant research. I
will discuss how The Cochrane Collaboration prepares and maintains
systematic reviews of the effects of health care interventions, and the
need for researchers to discuss new findings in the context of existing
evidence.
b)
Communicating science to the general public. Pawel Walewski, Polityka Magazine, Warsaw, Poland
In
the last 50 years man has landed on the moon, achieved nuclear fission
and discovered antibiotics. But to counter these successes, how many
discoveries, announced with high expectations, have failed to deliver
on their early promise? Who is to blame?
Scientists-society-journalists, without doubt a triangle of mutual
discrepancies in interpretation. Science journalists do not create
their own stories, but relay information acquired from scientists. They
cannot prescribe and they do not heal, although their reports can have
profound effect - a newspaper scare story may prevent a patient from
seeking treatment and therefore, indirectly, be fatal. To what extent
are journalists independent? Do we have the right to raise hopes, or
cause fear, in the name of enlightenment?
CONFERENCE ENDS: CLOSING REMARKS
Post-conference workshops sponsored by the Open Society Institute
These workshops were run by Dr Remedios Melero on Monday 19 June, at the Palac Larischa, Krakow, Poland.
1) Two roads to open access
Given by Neil Jacobs, Alice Keefer, John Wilinsky, Bill Hubbard (to be confirmed)
Further details
This workshop was supported by a grant from The Open Society Institute
2) Statistics for journal editors
Given by Christopher R Palmer
Further details
Programme Committee :
Jenny Gretton, Roderick Hunt, Elisabeth Kessler, Hervé Maisonneuve,
Joan Marsh, Georgianna Oja, Arjan Polderman and Edward Towpik.
|
|
 |


|