{"id":1330,"date":"2012-03-10T11:49:44","date_gmt":"2012-03-10T11:49:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.saasoft.com\/blog\/?p=1330"},"modified":"2012-03-10T11:49:44","modified_gmt":"2012-03-10T11:49:44","slug":"re-journal-of-improvement-science","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/?p=1330","title":{"rendered":"The Journal of Improvement Science"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Improvement Science\u00a0encompasses research, improvement and audit and includes both subjective and objective dimensions. \u00a0An essential part of collective improvement is sharing\u00a0our questions and learning\u00a0with others.<\/p>\n

From the\u00a0perspective of the\u00a0learner it is necessary to be able to trust that what is shared is\u00a0valid and from the perspective of the questioner it is necessary to be able to challenge with respect.<\/p>\n

Sharing new knowledge is not the only purpose of publication:\u00a0for academic\u00a0organisations it is also a\u00a0measure of performance\u00a0so there is a academic peer pressure to publish\u00a0both quantity and quality –\u00a0an academic’s career progression depends on it.<\/p>\n

This pressure\u00a0has created a whole industry of its own – the\u00a0academic journal\u00a0– and to ensure quality is maintained it\u00a0has created the scholastic peer review process. \u00a0<\/em>The \u00a0intention is to filter\u00a0submitted papers and to only publish those that are deemed worthy – those that are believed by the experts to be of most value and of highest quality.<\/p>\n

There are several criteria that editors instruct their volunteer “independent reviewers” to apply such as originality, relevance, study design, data presentation and\u00a0balanced discussion. \u00a0This process was designed\u00a0over a hundred years ago and it\u00a0has stood the test of time – but<\/strong> – it was designed specifically for\u00a0research and before the invention of the Internet,\u00a0of social media and the emergence of Improvement Science.<\/p>\n

So fast-forward to the present and to a world where improvement is now seen to\u00a0 be complementary to research and audit; where time-series\u00a0statistics is viewed as a valid and complementary data analysis method;\u00a0and where we are all able to globally share information with each other\u00a0and learn from each other in seconds through the medium of\u00a0modern electronic communication.<\/p>\n

Given these changes is the traditional academic peer review\u00a0journal system\u00a0still fit for purpose?<\/p>\n

One way to approach this question is from the perspective of the customers of the system\u00a0– the people who\u00a0read the published papers and the people who write them.\u00a0 What niggles do they have that might point to opportunities for improvement?<\/p>\n

Well, as a reader:<\/p>\n

My\u00a0first niggle is to have to pay a large fee to download an electronic copy of a published paper before I\u00a0can read it. All I can see is the abstract which does not tell me\u00a0what I really want to know – I want to see the details of the method and the data not just the authors edited highlights and conclusions.<\/p>\n

My second\u00a0niggle is\u00a0the long lead time\u00a0between the work being done and the paper being published – often measured in years! \u00a0This implies that the published news is\u00a0old news\u00a0 useful for reference maybe but useless for stimulating conversation and innovation.<\/p>\n

My\u00a0third\u00a0niggle is what is not published. \u00a0The well-designed and well-conducted studies that have negative outcomes; lessons\u00a0that offer as much opportunity for learning as the positive ones.\u00a0 This is not all\u00a0– many studies\u00a0are never done or never published\u00a0because the outcome might be perceived to adversely\u00a0affect a commercial or “political” interest.<\/p>\n

My fourth\u00a0niggle is the almost complete insistence on the\u00a0use of empirical data and comparative statistics – data from simulation studies being treated as “low-grade”\u00a0and the use of time-series statistics\u00a0as “invalid”.\u00a0 Sometimes simulations and uncontrolled experiments are\u00a0the only feasible way to\u00a0answer real-world questions\u00a0and there is more to improvement than a RCT (randomised controlled trial).<\/p>\n

From the perspective of an author of papers I have\u00a0some additional\u00a0niggles – the secrecy that surrounds the\u00a0review process (you are not allowed to know who has reviewed the paper);\u00a0the lack of constructive feedback that could help an inexperienced author to improve their studies and submissions;\u00a0and the\u00a0insistence on assignment of\u00a0copyright to the publisher\u00a0– as an author you have to\u00a0give up\u00a0ownership of your creative output.<\/p>\n

That all said there are many more nuggets to the peer review process than niggles and to a very large extent what\u00a0is published can be trusted – which\u00a0cannot be said\u00a0for the\u00a0more popular media of news, newspapers, blogs, tweets, and the continuous cacophony of partially informed prejudice, opinion and gossip that goes for “information”.<\/p>\n

So, how do we keep the peer-reviewed baby and\u00a0lose the publication-process bath water? How do we keep the nuggets and dump\u00a0the niggles?<\/p>\n

What about a\u00a0Journal of Improvement Science along the lines of:<\/p>\n

1. Fully electronic, online and free to download – no printed material.
\n2. Community of sponsors\u00a0– who publically volunteer to support and assist\u00a0authors.
\n3. Continuously updated ranking system – where readers vote for the\u00a0most useful papers.
\n4. Authors can revise previously published papers – using\u00a0feedback from peers and readers.
\n5. Authors retain the copyright – they can copy and distribute their own papers as much as they like.
\n6. Expected use of both time-series and comparative statistics where appropriate.
\n7. Short\u00a0publication lead times – typically days.
\n8. All outcomes are publishable – warts and all.
\n9. Published authors are eligible to be sponsors for future submissions.
\n10. No commercial sponsorship or advertising.<\/p>\n

STOP PRESS: JOIS is now launched: Click here<\/a> to enter.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Improvement Science\u00a0encompasses research, improvement and audit and includes both subjective and objective dimensions. \u00a0An essential part of collective improvement is sharing\u00a0our questions and learning\u00a0with others. From the\u00a0perspective of the\u00a0learner it is necessary to be able to trust that what is shared is\u00a0valid and from the perspective of the questioner it is necessary to be able … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “The Journal of Improvement Science”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[15,22,27,31,34,35,45,48],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1330","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-design","category-healthcare","category-jois","category-papers","category-questions","category-reflections","category-what","category-trust"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1330","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1330"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1330\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1330"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1330"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1330"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}