GLOSSARY

Definition: The tendency to report only significant results in the abstract, while reporting non-significant results within the main body of the manuscript (not reporting non-significant results altogether would constitute selective reporting). The consequence of abstract bias is that studies reporting non-significant results may not be captured with standard meta-analytic search procedures (which rely on information in the title, abstract and keywords) and thus biasing the results of meta-analyses.

2022 - FORRT > Framework for Open and Reproducible Research Training content licensed under a CC BY NC SA 4.0 license

Definition: From Latin meaning “to the person”; Judgement of an argument or piece of work influenced by the characteristics of the person who forwarded it, not the characteristics of the argument itself. Ad hominem bias can be negative, as when work from a competitor or target of personal animosity is viewed more critically than the quality of the work merits, or positive, as when work from a friend benefits from overly favourable evaluation.

2022 - FORRT > Framework for Open and Reproducible Research Training content licensed under a CC BY NC SA 4.0 license

Definition: This bias occurs when one’s opinions or judgements about the quality of research are influenced by the affiliation of the author(s). When publishing manuscripts, a potential example of an affiliation bias could be when editors prefer to publish work from prestigious institutions (Tvina et al., 2019).

2022 - FORRT > Framework for Open and Reproducible Research Training content licensed under a CC BY NC SA 4.0 license

The Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment is a declaration that commits its signatories to contribute to reforming the current research assessment system to make it fairer, more inclusive and focused on the value of research quality and impact. Its core actions include promoting the use of qualitative indicators, supported by responsible use of quantitative indicators, the recognition of the diversity of research outputs, and the abandonment of the inappropriate use of journal-based metrics and rankings. Unlike previous initiatives in research assessment, such as DORA or the Leiden Manifesto, the Agreement commits its signatories to implement these changes within an established timeframe (2022-2027). To support the reform, a Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) has been founded (see separate entry).

References & further information:

https://coara.eu/app/uploads/2022/09/2022_07_19_rra_agreement_final.pdf

https://coara.eu/ 

Anonymisation is the process of removing personally identifiable information (information that directly or indirectly relates to an identified or identifiable person) from datasets containing sensitive data. As a result, data subject is no longer identifiable. As opposed to pseudonymisation, anonymisation is not reversible, which means that the re-identification of the data subject is not possible.

Various digital tools that can automate anonymisation are available, e.g. Amnesia, ARX, Privacy Protection Application, etc.

Source: https://www.openaire.eu/how-to-comply-with-horizon-europe-mandate-for-rdm (Glossary)

ARGOS is an online tool in support of automated processes to creating, managing, sharing and linking Data Management Plans with research artifacts they correspond to. It is the joint effort of OpenAIRE and EUDAT to deliver an open platform for Data Management Planning that addresses FAIR and Open best practices and assumes no barriers for its use and adoption. It does so by applying common standards for machine-actionable Data Management Plans as defined by the global research data community of RDA and by communicating and consulting with researchers, research communities and funders to better reflect on their needs. 

Source: https://argos.openaire.eu/about

Article processing charge (APC) means the payment by the author (the funder, the institution or the employer) to the publisher in exchange for publishing and hosting an open access article. APCs are used by open access journals in lieu of subscription fees that libraries and readers traditionally have paid to gain access to research articles. Journal APCs vary widely, from about $300 to over $10.000, and diverse funding may be available. 

Reference: https://forrt.org/glossary/article-processing-charge-apc/ 

"Publication fees charged by certain open access journals post-acceptance, are also known as author publishing charges or article processing charges (APCs). APCs may be driven down by submission fees, particularly among open access journals with high rejection rates. In contrast to post-acceptance charges by traditional journals, these APCs are more often flat fees because they primarily fund peer review and online dissemination, which are length independent.

Be aware that “predatory” journals may take advantage of the APC-based model to receive payment in return for minimal peer review and processing, so be sure to look for warning signs and consider checking whether your target journal is listed by the Directory of Open Access Journals. A truly open access journal should also meet the two-fold requirement defined above by PLOS: “unrestricted access and unrestricted reuse,” meaning that an open access article must not only be freely accessible to readers but also freely available for copying, distribution, and derivative work, as long as the original author is acknowledged. In particular, open access articles are often associated with a CC-BY license, although certain journals may not support reuse/derivation."

An Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM) is defined as the version of the work as accepted for publication, including all changes made during the peer review process. This differs from the Version of Record (VoR), which is the version of a journal article that has been made available by any organization that acts as a publisher by formally and exclusively declaring the article “published”.

An example of the AAM being used as part of Rights Retention wording (in alignment with Plan S) in a submission to a peer-reviewed journal:

“This research was funded in whole or in part by [Funder] [Grant number]. For the purpose of Open Access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM) version arising from this submission.”

AAM definition and further reading: https://www.coalition-s.org/rights-retention-strategy/

VOR vs AAM: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2021/04/05/publishers-care-about-the-version-of-record-do-researchers/

The author's final, peer reviewed and corrected manuscript is the version of paper that has been updated to include all changes resulting from peer review, as well as any changes requested by the journal editor.
Authors are encouraged to use Sherpa Romeo (https://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/) to analyses publisher open access policies and to deposit their accepted manuscript in a right way to repositories, sometimes after an embargo period. 
AAM is usually created in Word or LaTeX document or similar and will not contain any publisher typesetting or copyediting.
The AAM is not the same as the publisher's PDF.