From 1b82e0da263eff12e5ca720045bfc08e216d9479 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Lukas Wallrich Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2026 23:35:38 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Separate traditional publishing from other communication (#21) Addresses the two R1 points in #21: (1) reframe the chapter so traditional peer-reviewed journal publishing is discussed separately from other ways of communicating results (FORRT Replication Database, PubPeer, preprints, PCIs), and (2) state explicitly that communicating and formally publishing are not mutually exclusive, so researchers can do either or both. All content stays in publishing.qmd and both tables are kept intact. --- publishing.qmd | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/publishing.qmd b/publishing.qmd index e639c0d..eeeaa1e 100644 --- a/publishing.qmd +++ b/publishing.qmd @@ -22,18 +22,19 @@ authors should keep in mind the historical context of the original publication. For example, sharing data was much more difficult in the 1990s and not required in many areas until recently. -The journals that published the original studies are often also chosen -by authors for publication in accordance with the *pottery-barn-rule* -[@Srivastava2012]. However, in our experience, many journals reject -replications due to their lack of novelty. We list several options for -writing and publishing the report in @tbl-reporting-options. These are -non-exclusive, that is, researchers can choose multiple of them. An -overview of active journals that exclusively publish replications is in -@tbl-rep-journals. Note that the Journal of Reproducibility in -Neuroscience () has been discontinued and -AIS Transactions on Replication Research -() has been moved into a journal that is -not specialized on repetitions. +Communicating a replication and formally publishing it in a +peer-reviewed journal are distinct, complementary activities, and they +are not mutually exclusive. Researchers can make their findings visible +and citable without a traditional journal, they can pursue journal +publication, or they can do both. @tbl-reporting-options lists the main +options, and researchers can choose one, several, or all of them. The +first two options, the FORRT Replication Database and PubPeer, make a +replication findable without writing a full manuscript. A manuscript, +the traditional form of a research article, can in turn be released as a +preprint, which makes it openly available and citable before peer +review, and the same manuscript can also be submitted to a journal. +Posting a preprint and submitting to a journal are therefore +complementary rather than competing choices. | Type | Description | |----|----| @@ -46,6 +47,23 @@ not specialized on repetitions. : Reporting and communicating reproductions and replications. {#tbl-reporting-options} +For researchers who pursue traditional journal publication, the journals +that published the original studies are a natural target, in accordance +with the *pottery-barn rule* [@Srivastava2012], under which a journal +that published an original finding should also publish replications of +it. In our experience, however, many journals reject replications due to +their lack of novelty, and many are not yet interested in replications +at all. Partly in response, journals dedicated to replications have +emerged, and @tbl-rep-journals lists active examples. Note that the +Journal of Reproducibility in Neuroscience +() has been discontinued and AIS +Transactions on Replication Research () +has been moved into a journal that is not specialized on repetitions. +Researchers can also submit a preprint to a PCI community (see +), a preprint peer-review +service, and several journals are PCI-friendly, meaning that they +publish articles recommended by the respective PCI. + Many institutions and libraries recommend adding a CC-BY disclaimer on journal submissions that give the researchers the right to use the accepted manuscript as they like or choosing Diamond Open Access From 3e7755735ee060654a10d1ba4bd58a953068cca5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Lukas Wallrich Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2026 17:43:56 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Address codex review: soften publishing overclaims (#21) --- publishing.qmd | 17 +++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/publishing.qmd b/publishing.qmd index eeeaa1e..ee61f77 100644 --- a/publishing.qmd +++ b/publishing.qmd @@ -24,8 +24,8 @@ publication. For example, sharing data was much more difficult in the Communicating a replication and formally publishing it in a peer-reviewed journal are distinct, complementary activities, and they -are not mutually exclusive. Researchers can make their findings visible -and citable without a traditional journal, they can pursue journal +are not mutually exclusive. Researchers can make their findings visible, +linkable, and in some cases citable without a traditional journal, they can pursue journal publication, or they can do both. @tbl-reporting-options lists the main options, and researchers can choose one, several, or all of them. The first two options, the FORRT Replication Database and PubPeer, make a @@ -50,10 +50,11 @@ complementary rather than competing choices. For researchers who pursue traditional journal publication, the journals that published the original studies are a natural target, in accordance with the *pottery-barn rule* [@Srivastava2012], under which a journal -that published an original finding should also publish replications of -it. In our experience, however, many journals reject replications due to -their lack of novelty, and many are not yet interested in replications -at all. Partly in response, journals dedicated to replications have +that published an original finding should consider publishing +methodologically sound replications of findings it originally published. +In our experience, however, many journals reject replications due to +their lack of novelty, and some remain reluctant to consider +replications. Partly in response, journals dedicated to replications have emerged, and @tbl-rep-journals lists active examples. Note that the Journal of Reproducibility in Neuroscience () has been discontinued and AIS @@ -61,8 +62,8 @@ Transactions on Replication Research () has been moved into a journal that is not specialized on repetitions. Researchers can also submit a preprint to a PCI community (see ), a preprint peer-review -service, and several journals are PCI-friendly, meaning that they -publish articles recommended by the respective PCI. +service, and several journals are PCI-friendly, meaning they may +consider or publish articles recommended by the respective PCI. Many institutions and libraries recommend adding a CC-BY disclaimer on journal submissions that give the researchers the right to use the