Dr. @Jacco Th. van Loon is a Reader at Keele University (UK), he joined the Editorial board of Scientific Reports in 2022.
Dr Van Loon earned his PhD at the University of Amsterdam in 1999, after two years at ESO headquarters near Munich. Following a two-year postdoc in Cambridge, he joined Keele University as a Lecturer in 2001 and was promoted to Reader in 2008. He is the Keele Observatory Director now.
His research focuses on galaxies and their constituent gas and stars. He utilises ground- and space-based telescopes to observe cosmic astrophysical processes, some of which evolve in real time. His current work centres on WOH G64, an extremely luminous, dusty red supergiant exhibiting unexpected evolutionary changes.
***
In this Series of Editor Stories, we asked him a few questions about his Editorial Role with Scientific Reports and any advice he would pass on. Read on!
What do you like most about being an Editorial Board Member for Scientific Reports?
Being an editorial board member gives me the opportunity to play a supportive role in the scientific community, both support of the authors and support of the generation of scientific knowledge. It also gives me a front row seat at the theatre of ideas.
We know that finding reviewers is one of the hardest parts of an editorial role. Do you have any tricks on finding reviewers?
I agree this is difficult, not so much finding appropriate reviewers but asking reviewers who then accept to review (and submit a report). The tool that is provided to search for reviewers is quite good, and while I sometimes have reviewers in mind I know of that do not immediately appear in the list, the tool allows me to remove my personal bias. In this way I have secured high quality reports from reviewers I didn't know before. Do not let h index rule your choice (much to my disappointment, many researchers with high h index choose to refuse playing their part in reviewing other people's work).
If you were to give a piece of advice to other Editors, what would that be?
Reject manuscripts for which all (more than one) reviewers agree it has serious flaws that cannot be corrected but do give authors a chance to respond and do not propose rejection if it looks like it might be possible to address the reviewers' objections satisfactorily. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for a reviewer to be wrong or unfair.
Do you think Scientific Reports help reduce publication bias, and if yes – how?
Because Scientific Reports explicitly states that their criteria for publication are scientific rigour and not impact, and editorial assistants often query editorial decisions that could have been swayed by a (perceived) lack of scientific importance, they actively reduce publication bias. Likewise, they welcome studies that attempt to reproduce results from others, bringing some elements of originality.
What would you like to share with your fellow researchers on publishing in an inclusive journal?
I often express my views that quality of doing science is not just about being right or answering the biggest question and using the most expensive facilities. It is about contributing to scientific progress done by the entire scientific community, being inclusive to diverse ideas and approaches and being open minded about scientists that have different views and ways of working compared to your own.
What are the biggest challenges that you see for the future of research and research dissemination?
The biggest problem is that so much is being published that it becomes impossible to keep up with the literature in one's own field of expertise, let alone maintain a broad perspective. Most researchers will not read papers but still cite them based on a quick extraction of a small piece of information or simply on how many times those papers have been cited by others (as a perceived indicator of importance). Luckily, in my discipline I can see everything appear posted on arXiv (if someone doesn't post on arXiv, very few people will know of it), but even skimming titles and abstracts takes me 20 minutes a day, and this is increasing year on year. It is also one of the reasons it is difficult to get reviewers, because they must sacrifice quite a lot of their precious time to do this, and requests are increasing in frequency.
What are responsible ways to integrate AI into the peer review process, and how can editors feel empowered to explore these new tools to provide helpful solutions for authors, editors, reviewers, and AI experts?
AI can help find reviewers, quite easily. It can, certainly in the (near) future, also help researchers digest the amount of information that is being published. I don't think AI is yet capable of reviewing manuscripts, but I'm not saying it can't in the future. Certainly, AI must be able to help combat plagiarism. But I don't think AI can be good at finding out whether AI was used to generate a publication (or the research behind it), which may or may not be a concern.
How has the landscape in inclusive publication changed over the last 10 years?
There are now more journals adopting differing policies regarding the types of work, form of review and support of authors. Generally, this has made it more inclusive, both of people and of ideas. It also has forced traditional journals to rethink their own policies, though some are still quite hit and miss when it comes to what they publish and what they reject. Often this is due to the position the editors take, when they are reluctant to overrule reviewers' unfair criticism. I notice fewer of my colleagues are afraid of publishing in non-traditional journals, and many care less about where research is published when they read it. Even funding agencies now often state that it is not important where research is published, as research quality is not guaranteed by publishing in a traditional, high-profile journal.
Homepage: https://www.keele.ac.uk/scps/physicsandastrophysics/ourpeople/jthvanloon/