INTERVIEW: “Scientists hold a special privilege”
The Nature Awards John Maddox Prize is awarded each year for ‘standing up for science’. The prize recognises researchers who stand up and speak out for science and evidence-based policy, advancing public discussion around difficult topics, despite challenges or hostility, and successfully making a change in public discourse or policy.
We caught up with Early Career Award winner Kelly Cobey, Director of the Metaresearch and Open Science Program at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute.
Tell us a little about your background and qualifications…
I have a PhD in Social Psychology that I obtained from the University of Groningen in the Netherlands. Learning is never done though; I continue to take courses to stay updated and develop new expertise formally and informally. I did a week-long certificate course on health law and AI earlier this month.
What does your ‘day job’ at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute involve?
I direct the Metaresearch and Open Science Program – I spend my days in the office interacting with staff and trainees to develop project ideas and provide methodological input on studies and their reporting. Many of my collaborators are not based in Ottawa so I do spend a lot of time on Zoom. My work with DORA (Declaration On Research Assessment) is particularly global in scope, so my day can begin with a 6am call with folks on the other side of the globe.
I give a lot of lectures or training sessions, including teaching a graduate seminar class in the School of Epidemiology and Public Health at uOttawa this semester. A focus of mine is developing communities of practice, so I chair a lot of meetings and try to bring together distinct actors in the research ecosystem to engage on common goals such as open science and research assessment reform.
Many congratulations on the Maddox Early Career Award! What is the role of science in bringing political and public conversations back to facts, and cutting through disinformation – and why you think that is important?
Scientists hold a special privilege: we are perceived as a credible source of information by the public. With this privilege comes significant responsibility if we are to maintain public trust in the shifting geopolitical landscape. In my view, open science, being transparent about our methods and reporting findings clearly and completely, is critical to maintaining public trust and conversation.
It is through adopting open science we can deliver on our mandate to provide credible information in a transparent way. In my view, especially in countries like mine where research is primarily federally funded through tax dollars, scientists and research institutions have a moral imperative to use their roles to advocate for evidence-based decision-making and monitoring.
SUBSCRIBE to the Research Information Newsline!
Will winning the award inform your work in the future?
It was a great honour and a complete surprise to be recognised with the John Maddox Award. There are so many incredible researchers across the globe doing amazing work in the area of open science; I see this award as a recognition of this broader community’s efforts and successes in shifting how science is done.
I feel the award has given me a bit of a push to keep going in the face of resistance; I feel acknowledged firmly by a broad group of individuals and organizations that the work I am doing on open science and research assessment reform matters, and that I should keep going with it.
What are your wider thoughts about the scholarly communications landscape? In 10 years’ time, what would your ideal scholarly communications landscape look like? How can the commercial players play a part in achieving this?
The scholarly landscape is shifting quickly. I am interested to see how concerns about predatory journals and/or low-quality journals change over time. The Centre for Open Science (COS) has created the TOP standard to signal a journal’s transparency practices – I think this, or similar initiatives, will be essential in providing a publicly available report on a given journal’s transparency practices. This will help researchers and the public alike to gauge what journals are likely to be a good source of information or to submit to.
We need active interventions to address journals that foster misinformation – public engagement is critical to our success in achieving this. I am also interested in following the role of AI in the evolving scholarly landscape. AI presents both opportunities and challenges for the ecosystem; careful consideration and development and implementation of frameworks will be critical here.
My ideal vision of scholarly publishing has a few features. First, the publishing process would be characterized by transparency. Transparency in journal processes, peer review, and decision-making. Secondly, the publishing landscape will evolve to reflect the needs of the community. This would include an open access by default approach.
I’m optimistic that within 10 years the current system will have shifted: journals like Elife that are disruptors in the publication model ecosystem will have greater evidence of the value of diverse publication models. Ultimately this will reduce duplication of effort, expedite knowledge exchange, and serve a broader and more diverse community. We need disruption and thoughtful consideration about what the role of scholarly journals should be in the modern and global research ecosystem.
What are the key issues that need to be overcome to get to this point?
The obsession with journal impact factor needs to be addressed to move us beyond the constraints of the current scholarly landscape. Initiatives like DORA have raised awareness of the need for research assessment reform among diverse actors in the research ecosystem; we now need to act on that awareness and push for positive changes.
We need to experiment and monitor if we are having success at reforming research assessment. When achievement is shifted towards qualitative metrics, and we stop using reductive quantitative metrics, we will be able to create a research environment that fosters quality of scholarly publishing (i.e., clear and complete reporting, open science, and research integrity). The role of research knowledge as a public good needs to shape our thinking around the appropriate management of commercial entities and their level of dominance in this ecosystem.
Do you have any interesting hobbies or pastimes you’d like to tell us about? What do you get up to in your spare time?
I love to cycle. My preference is road cycling but these days I collect most of my kilometers cycling and commuting around Ottawa with my young family using our cargo bike. I grew up in a small-ish rural community and this upbringing gave me a deep appreciation for nature; even with winter looming in Canada, I make it a priority to be outdoors as much as possible.