The scholarly publishing system is adapting to many changes, including open access and open data mandates, artificial intelligence, and other new technologies. Members of the research and publishing communities are working to establish a more equitable, fair, and rigorous system that serves researchers' evolving needs. Early career researchers (ECRs) are drivers of change, and publishers may wonder why and how they should involve ECRs in shaping the future of scholarly publishing. We held a virtual unconference to explore this issue with publishers and ECRs who were working to improve publishing. Some participants sought to improve peer reviewer or editor performance, whereas others sought to improve the publishing system itself through iterative or transformative change. Strategies for collaborating with ECRs to shape the future of scholarly publishing included peer review programmes, editorial programmes, ECR-led journals, ECR boards and committee representatives, and other ECR-initiated activities. ECRs particularly wanted to see three things improved: (1) Sharing research outputs other than publications, (2) addressing technological limitations to create systems that meet the research community's needs and facilitate knowledge advancement, and (3) fostering diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility. We offer tips for publishers on how to collaborate with ECRs to enhance scholarly publishing, appeal to and learn from younger researchers, and better meet researchers' needs.

This integrative literature review analyzes the corpus of biology education research published in the main biology education journals of major professional societies. The goal of this analysis is to determine which approaches (including groups of focus, research methods, and settings/perspectives) from social science fields (i.e., psychology, sociology, and anthropology) are utilized in published peer-reviewed biology education research relating to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Scoping how social science approaches are used in this area is important to understanding whether biology education research could benefit from complementary approaches that might advance praxis. This analysis found that research informing the biology education community draws heavily from psychological perspectives that are overwhelmingly not disaggregated (78% of articles identifying a group lumped the participant together), are by far more quantitative (58% used survey, 26% grades, 20% school data) than qualitative (17% used interview, 10% observation), and did not adopt structural approaches (72%). The addition of missing contributions from social science is critical to advancing interventions to broaden STEM participation, given that merging paradigms can offer more robust, multi-level explanations for observed phenomena. This has important implications for education, biology education, biology education research, social science, and research in related STEM fields.

Academic research in the U.S. is managed through and driven by principal investigators overseeing independent research programs, often with a goal of training researchers in the process. The theoretical path to becoming a principal research investigator consists of developing research skills during a PhD, followed by “apprentice”-style research experiences as a postdoctoral researcher, ultimately leading to independent leadership of research projects (and teams) as a faculty member. Early career researchers looking to climb this career ladder therefore need to develop research “independence”, or independence of thought. Workshops conducted with graduate students and postdoctoral researchers in biomedical sciences at multiple universities revealed barriers to research independence. Through these workshops, early career researchers identified solutions to achieving research independence, which revolve around intellectual contributions, training and mentorship, career development and progression, compensation and benefits, work-life balance and mental health, and finally immigration and visas. We propose that systemic changes in these areas will lead to the development of a healthy and productive research enterprise that can build future leaders in the field through developing independent researchers who can advance scientific research.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293879.].

AbstractPeer-review and publication are important parts of the scientific enterprise, and research has shown that engaging students in such scholarly practices helps build their sense of belonging and scientific identity. Yet, these disciplinary literacy skills and professional practices are often part of the hidden curriculum of science research, thus excluding students and others from fully understanding ways in which scientific knowledge is constructed, refined, and disseminated even though students are participating in such activities. Secondary students are increasingly involved in scientific research projects that include authentic disciplinary literacy components such as research proposals, posters, videos, and scientific research papers. More and more, students are also engaging in professional practice of publishing their scientific research papers through dedicated secondary science journals. How teachers and other mentors support the development of professional disciplinary literacies in students is critical to understand as part of supporting more student participation in research. To this end, we used a mixed- methods study of interviews and surveys to examine the experience and conceptions of the mentors (teachers and professional scientists) who guided pre-college students through the writing and publication of their scientific research projects. Analyzing our data from a lens of cognitive apprenticeship, we find that mentors encourage independence by primarily employing the method of “exploration”. We also find that mentors have divergent views on the value of publication within science, versus for student scientists specifically. Our findings suggest that mentors could work to explicitly reveal their own thinking within science writing to provide more sequenced support for student scientists.

This integrative literature review analyzes the corpus of biology education research published in the main biology education journals of major professional societies. The goal of this analysis is to determine which approaches (including groups of focus, research methods, and settings/perspectives) from social science fields (i.e., psychology, sociology, and anthropology) are utilized in published peer-reviewed biology education research relating to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). Scoping how social science approaches are used in this area is important to understanding whether biology education research could benefit from complementary approaches that might advance praxis. This analysis found that research informing the biology education community draws heavily from psychological perspectives that are overwhelmingly not disaggregated (78% of articles identifying a group used a lumped together one), are by far more quantitative (58% used survey, 26% grades, 20% school data) than qualitative (17% used interview, 10% observation), and did not (72%) adopt structural approaches. The addition of missing contributions from social science is critical to advancing interventions to broaden STEM participation given that merging paradigms can offer more robust, multi-level explanations for observed phenomena. This has important implications for education, biology education, biology education research, social science, and research in related STEM fields. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.

Science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) fields change rapidly and are increasingly interdisciplinary. Commonly, STEMM practitioners use short-format training (SFT) such as workshops and short courses for upskilling and reskilling, but unaddressed challenges limit SFT's effectiveness and inclusiveness. Education researchers, students in SFT courses, and organizations have called for research and strategies that can strengthen SFT in terms of effectiveness, inclusiveness, and accessibility across multiple dimensions. This paper describes the project that resulted in a consensus set of 14 actionable recommendations to systematically strengthen SFT. A diverse international group of 30 experts in education, accessibility, and life sciences came together from 10 countries to develop recommendations that can help strengthen SFT globally. Participants, including representation from some of the largest life science training programs globally, assembled findings in the educational sciences and encompassed the experiences of several of the largest life science SFT programs. The 14 recommendations were derived through a Delphi method, where consensus was achieved in real time as the group completed a series of meetings and tasks designed to elicit specific recommendations. Recommendations cover the breadth of SFT contexts and stakeholder groups and include actions for instructors (e.g., make equity and inclusion an ethical obligation), programs (e.g., centralize infrastructure for assessment and evaluation), as well as organizations and funders (e.g., professionalize training SFT instructors; deploy SFT to counter inequity). Recommendations are aligned with a purpose-built framework-"The Bicycle Principles"-that prioritizes evidenced-based teaching, inclusiveness, and equity, as well as the ability to scale, share, and sustain SFT. We also describe how the Bicycle Principles and recommendations are consistent with educational change theories and can overcome systemic barriers to delivering consistently effective, inclusive, and career-spanning SFT.

Education about scientific publishing and manuscript peer review is not universally provided in undergraduate science courses. Since peer review is integral to the scientific process and central to the identity of a scientist, we envision a paradigm shift where teaching peer review becomes integral to undergraduate science education. We hypothesize that teaching undergraduates how to peer review scientific manuscripts may facilitate their development of scientific literacy and identity formation. To this end, we developed a constructivist, service-learning curriculum for biology undergraduates to learn about the mechanisms of peer review using preprints and then to write and publish their own peer reviews of preprints as a way to authentically join the scientific community of practice. The curriculum was implemented as a semester-long intervention in one class and, in another class, as an embedded module intervention. Students' scientific literacy and peer review ability were assessed using quantitative methods. Student's perceptions of their scientific literacy and identity were assessed using thematic analysis of students' reflective writing. Here, we present data on the improvement in the peer review ability of undergraduates in both classes and data on the curriculum's interrelated impact on students' development of scientific literacy, identity, and belonging in peer and professional discourse spaces. These data suggest that undergraduates can and should be trained in peer review to foster the interrelated development of their scientific literacy, scientific identity, and sense of belonging in science.

Key points Undergraduate science education should include education in scholarly practices like peer review. Authentic experiences in peer review increase science literacy and science identity. Peer review of preprints provides a means for undergraduates to be involved in peer review that is independent of journal gatekeeping processes.

Early career researchers (ECRs) are important stakeholders leading efforts to catalyze systemic change in research culture and practice. Here, we summarize the outputs from a virtual unconventional conference (unconference), which brought together 54 invited experts from 20 countries with extensive experience in ECR initiatives designed to improve the culture and practice of science. Together, we drafted 2 sets of recommendations for (1) ECRs directly involved in initiatives or activities to change research culture and practice; and (2) stakeholders who wish to support ECRs in these efforts. Importantly, these points apply to ECRs working to promote change on a systemic level, not only those improving aspects of their own work. In both sets of recommendations, we underline the importance of incentivizing and providing time and resources for systems-level science improvement activities, including ECRs in organizational decision-making processes, and working to dismantle structural barriers to participation for marginalized groups. We further highlight obstacles that ECRs face when working to promote reform, as well as proposed solutions and examples of current best practices. The abstract and recommendations for stakeholders are available in Dutch, German, Greek (abstract only), Italian, Japanese, Polish, Portuguese, Spanish, and Serbian.

Preprints catalyze rapid and open communication of research. A frequent criticism of preprints, however, is their lack of peer review. In recent years, myriad new initiatives have enabled review of preprinted research to be coordinated, collected, and displayed alongside preprints. This provides evaluation and context for readers, as well as feedback for the authors. The processes behind preprint review are diverse and may differ from journal peer review, which can be a challenge for readers seeking to compare and interpret the reviews. To address this, the ASAPbio organized a working group that set out to define key features of preprint review processes. Here, we describe Preprint Review Features (PReF) as descriptors and provide an implementation guide. PReF captures the key elements of preprint review processes using 8 standard key-value pairs. PReF can serve within the descriptions of individual preprint review processes, and act as search filters on indexing services. Widespread adoption of PReF will promote understanding and categorization of preprint review and improve its discoverability.

Peer review of a research product varies widely depending on the publishers and platforms involved in the process. As scholarly publishing is disrupted by new innovations, peer review processes become more heterogeneous, placing an increasing burden on the researcher in understanding how they can communicate their scholarship. New ways to model such processes, and increase transparency, trust, and experimentation in scholarly publishing are needed. Many are emerging but can tend to focus on the needs of creators, and not those of readers, funders, and the whole scholarly publishing ecosystem. They may not place focus on representing editorial practices in ways that can be reliably aggregated, surfaced, and queried; are often limited to traditional peer review processes; and cannot capture the full range of editorial practices and events needed to accommodate alternative publication, review, and curation models. To support researchers in a world of experimentation in scholarly publishing, we propose a machine-readable, extensible, and discoverable framework for representing and surfacing review and editorial processes. Working with a Technical Committee composed of interested parties by employing a modified Delphi Method, we developed initial guiding principles and proposals towards an object-level editorial metadata framework compatible with a broad range of possible futures for scholarly publishing. We present the results of this process with a proposal and example use cases for DocMaps , a framework for representing object-level assertions.

Early career researchers are frequent and valuable contributors to peer review. Systemic changes that acknowledge this fact would result in ethical co-reviewing, peer reviews of greater quality, and a reduction in peer reviewer burden.

Early career researchers (ECRs) are important stakeholders leading efforts to catalyze systemic change in the conduct and communication of science. Here, we summarize the outputs from a virtual unconventional conference (unconference), which brought together 54 invited experts from 20 countries with extensive experience in ECR initiatives designed to improve science. The event was focused on why ECRs are needed to improve science and the obstacles they face when trying to promote reform. Our discussions also highlighted the additional obstacles that ECRs in countries with limited research funding experience when working to improve the scientific system. We provide the lessons learned from successful ECR-led or ECR-focused initiatives and outline actions that individuals and organizations can take to further support ECRs who are working to improve research culture and practice.