ORCID Profile
0000-0002-7207-1276
Current Organisation
Monash University
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 07-01-2022
Abstract: Science's success and effect measures are built on a system that prioritizes citations and impact factors. These measurements are inaccurate and biased against already under-represented groups, and they fail to convey the range of in iduals' significant scientific contributions, especially open science. We argue for a transition in this out-of-date value system that promotes science by promoting ersity, equity, and inclusion. To achieve systemic change, it will necessitate a concerted effort led by academic leaders and administrators.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 03-08-2023
DOI: 10.1186/S41073-023-00134-4
Abstract: The practice of clinical research is strictly regulated by law. During submission and review processes, compliance of such research with the laws enforced in the country where it was conducted is not always correctly filled in by the authors or verified by the editors. Here, we report a case of a single institution for which one may find hundreds of publications with seemingly relevant ethical concerns, along with 10 months of follow-up through contacts with the editors of these articles. We thus argue for a stricter control of ethical authorization by scientific editors and we call on publishers to cooperate to this end. We present an investigation of the ethics and legal aspects of 456 studies published by the IHU-MI (Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection) in Marseille, France. We identified a wide range of issues with the stated research authorization and ethics of the published studies with respect to the Institutional Review Board and the approval presented. Among the studies investigated, 248 were conducted with the same ethics approval number, even though the subjects, s les, and countries of investigation were different. Thirty-nine (39) did not even contain a reference to the ethics approval number while they present research on human beings. We thus contacted the journals that published these articles and provide their responses to our concerns. It should be noted that, since our investigation and reporting to journals, PLOS has issued expressions of concerns for several publications we analyze here. This case presents an investigation of the veracity of ethical approval, and more than 10 months of follow-up by independent researchers. We call for stricter control and cooperation in handling of these cases, including editorial requirement to upload ethical approval documents, guidelines from COPE to address such ethical concerns, and transparent editorial policies and timelines to answer such concerns. All supplementary materials are available.
Publisher: ACM
Date: 17-08-2018
Publisher: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Date: 14-08-2020
DOI: 10.1101/2020.08.13.249847
Abstract: In the last decade Open Science principles have been successfully advocated for and are being slowly adopted in different research communities. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic many publishers and researchers have sped up their adoption of Open Science practices, sometimes embracing them fully and sometimes partially or in a sub-optimal manner. In this article, we express concerns about the violation of some of the Open Science principles and its potential impact on the quality of research output. We provide evidence of the misuses of these principles at different stages of the scientific process. We call for a wider adoption of Open Science practices in the hope that this work will encourage a broader endorsement of Open Science principles and serve as a reminder that science should always be a rigorous process, reliable and transparent, especially in the context of a pandemic where research findings are being translated into practice even more rapidly. We provide all data and scripts at osf.io/renxy/ .
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 13-11-2019
DOI: 10.1111/CGF.13886
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 31-07-2021
Abstract: Background: Registered Reports are publications in which study proposals are peer reviewed and pre-accepted before the study is ran. Their adoption in other disciplines has been found to promote research quality and save time and resources. Objectives: We offer a brief introduction to Registered Reports and their expected benefits for visualization research. We then report a survey of the visualization community on their attitudes towards Registered Reports. This survey takes the form of a quasi Registered Report, the first one presented at a visualization venue as far as we know.Method: We will run an online survey that will be open from the end of August until the day of the alt.VIS workshop.Results: Most respondents expressed interest in Registered Reports as an additional submission format. Junior researchers as well as researchers with prior experience of preregistration tended to be more inclined to adopt this format. However, qualitative feedback highlights several perceived drawbacks and worries about Registered Reports, such as low suitability for some types of research, and increased workload for reviewers and authors.Conclusion: While many respondents expressed interest in (and sometimes enthusiasm for) Registered Reports, many also voiced concerns that should be considered and discussed in the community.Reproducibility: All the material is available on osf.io/4nrma/.
Publisher: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Date: 08-2021
Publisher: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Date: 2022
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 06-2022
DOI: 10.1111/CGF.14550
Abstract: We study tangible touch tablets combined with Augmented Reality Head‐Mounted Displays (AR‐HMDs) to perform spatial 3D selections. We are primarily interested in the exploration of 3D unstructured datasets such as cloud points or volumetric datasets. AR‐HMDs immerse users by showing datasets stereoscopically, and tablets provide a set of 2D exploration tools. Because AR‐HMDs merge the visualization, interaction, and the users' physical spaces, users can also use the tablets as tangible objects in their 3D space. Nonetheless, the tablets' touch displays provide their own visualization and interaction spaces, separated from those of the AR‐HMD. This raises several research questions compared to traditional setups. In this paper, we theorize, discuss, and study different available mappings for manual spatial selections using a tangible tablet within an AR‐HMD space. We then study the use of this tablet within a 3D AR environment, compared to its use with a 2D external screen.
Publisher: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Date: 2017
Publisher: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Date: 2019
Publisher: ACM
Date: 02-05-2019
Publisher: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Date: 10-2021
DOI: 10.1101/2021.09.29.21264325
Abstract: The infection-fatality rate (IFR) of COVID-19 has been carefully measured and analyzed in high-income countries, whereas there has been no systematic analysis of age-specific seroprevalence or IFR for developing countries. We systematically reviewed the literature to identify all COVID-19 serology studies in developing countries that were conducted using population representative s les collected by early 2021. For each of the antibody assays used in these serology studies, we identified data on assay characteristics, including the extent of seroreversion over time. We analyzed the serology data using a Bayesian model that incorporates conventional s ling uncertainty as well as uncertainties about assay sensitivity and specificity. We then calculated IFRs using in idual case reports or aggregated public health updates, including age-specific estimates whenever feasible. Seroprevalence in many developing country locations was markedly higher than in high-income countries. In most locations, seroprevalence among older adults was similar to that of younger age cohorts, underscoring the limited capacity that these nations have to protect older age groups. Age-specific IFRs were roughly 2x higher than in high-income countries. The median value of the population IFR was about 0.5%, similar to that of high-income countries, because disparities in healthcare access were roughly offset by differences in population age structure. The burden of COVID-19 is far higher in developing countries than in high-income countries, reflecting a combination of elevated transmission to middle-aged and older adults as well as limited access to adequate healthcare. These results underscore the critical need to accelerate the provision of vaccine doses to populations in developing countries. - Age-stratified infection fatality rates (IFRs) of COVID-19 in developing countries are about twice those of high-income countries. - Seroprevalence (as measured by antibodies against SARS-CoV-2) is broadly similar across age cohorts, underscoring the challenges of protecting older age groups in developing countries. - Population IFR in developing countries is similar to that of high-income countries, because differences in population age structure are roughly offset by disparities in healthcare access as well as elevated infection rates among older age cohorts. - These results underscore the urgency of disseminating vaccines throughout the developing world.
Publisher: MDPI AG
Date: 21-05-2019
DOI: 10.3390/DATA4020074
Abstract: The indoor climate is closely related to human health, well-being, and comfort. Thus, an understanding of the indoor climate is vital. One way to improve the indoor climates is to place an aesthetically pleasing active plant wall in the environment. By collecting data using sensors placed in and around the plant wall both the indoor climate and the status of the plant wall can be monitored and analyzed. This manuscript presents a user study with domain experts in this field with a focus on the representation of such data. The experts explored this data with a Line graph, a Horizon graph, and a Stacked area graph to better understand the status of the active plant wall and the indoor climate. Qualitative measures were collected with Think-aloud protocol and semi-structured interviews. The study resulted in four categories of analysis tasks: Overview, Detail, Perception, and Complexity. The Line graph was found to be preferred for use in providing an overview, and the Horizon graph for detailed analysis, revealing patterns and showing discernible trends, while the Stacked area graph was generally not preferred. Based on these findings, directions for future research are discussed and formulated. The results and future directions of this research can facilitate the analysis of multivariate temporal data, both for domain users and visualization researchers.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 05-06-2021
DOI: 10.1186/S12874-021-01304-Y
Abstract: In the last decade Open Science principles have been successfully advocated for and are being slowly adopted in different research communities. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic many publishers and researchers have sped up their adoption of Open Science practices, sometimes embracing them fully and sometimes partially or in a sub-optimal manner. In this article, we express concerns about the violation of some of the Open Science principles and its potential impact on the quality of research output. We provide evidence of the misuses of these principles at different stages of the scientific process. We call for a wider adoption of Open Science practices in the hope that this work will encourage a broader endorsement of Open Science principles and serve as a reminder that science should always be a rigorous process, reliable and transparent, especially in the context of a pandemic where research findings are being translated into practice even more rapidly. We provide all data and scripts at osf.io/renxy/ .
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 26-06-2020
DOI: 10.1186/S41073-020-00094-Z
Abstract: Our aim is to highlight the benefits and limitations of open and non-anonymized peer review. Our argument is based on the literature and on responses to a survey on the reviewing process of alt.chi, a more or less open review track within the so-called Computer Human Interaction (CHI) conference, the predominant conference in the field of human-computer interaction. This track currently is the only implementation of an open peer review process in the field of human-computer interaction while, with the recent increase in interest in open scientific practices, open review is now being considered and used in other fields. We ran an online survey with 30 responses from alt.chi authors and reviewers, collecting quantitative data using multiple-choice questions and Likert scales. Qualitative data were collected using open questions. Our main quantitative result is that respondents are more positive to open and non-anonymous reviewing for alt.chi than for other parts of the CHI conference. The qualitative data specifically highlight the benefits of open and transparent academic discussions. The data and scripts are available on osf.io/vuw7h/ , and the figures and follow-up work on tiny.cc/OpenReviews . While the benefits are quite clear and the system is generally well-liked by alt.chi participants, they remain reluctant to see it used in other venues. This concurs with a number of recent studies that suggest a ergence between support for a more open review process and its practical implementation.
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 09-10-2023
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 04-2022
DOI: 10.1093/JTM/TAAC055
Abstract: In this manuscript, we critically assess the evidence around various methods of reducing mobility, and how these have impacted the course of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We further highlight the difficulty in assessing the effectiveness of such measures before giving directions for future research.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 06-2019
DOI: 10.1111/CGF.13716
Publisher: ACM
Date: 15-10-2016
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 18-10-2023
Publisher: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Date: 30-06-2022
DOI: 10.1101/2022.06.30.22277084
Abstract: Retraction is the final safeguard against research error/misconduct. In principle, retraction exists to prevent serious issues identified in published research through post-publication review. Our study investigated the citing of clinical research papers retracted during the COVID-19 pandemic. We used the Retraction Watch database extracted as of 27/01/2022 to identify retracted COVID-19 papers and the Google Scholar citation function to gather a dataset of citations of retracted clinical research. We reviewed key aspects of the citing research. In total, the Retraction Watch database included 212 entries for retracted COVID-19 papers. Of these, 53 papers were clinical. There were a total of 1,141 citations of retracted papers, with 105 errors, leaving 1,036 citations to analyze. The majority (86%) of citations were not critical. The majority (80%) of papers citing retracted research were published after the retraction date. The citation of retracted and withdrawn COVID-19 clinical studies is common, and rarely critical. Most researchers who cite retracted research do not identify that the paper is retracted, even when submitting long after the paper has been withdrawn. This has serious implications for the reliability of published research and the academic literature, which need to be addressed.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 06-2019
DOI: 10.1111/CGF.13710
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 11-09-2021
Abstract: Introduction: Hedges and boosters are terms respectively used to decrease and increase the strength of statements. They are therefore essential lexical tools in scientific communication, in particular in fields conducting human-subjects experiments such as Human-Computer Interaction (HCI).Objectives: We present an analysis of the use of hedges and boosters in the proceedings of the main HCI conference, namely CHI, between 2010 and 2018 to better understand how CHI authors report empirical findings.Methods: We only considered papers reporting a user study and focused our analysis on the sentences in the abstract that describe empirical results. We used a program to detect boosters and hedges and manually adjusted their classifications.Results: We found that CHI studies reporting inferential statistics are more likely to boost than they hedge. Conclusion: Our work intends to raise awareness within the HCI community of the importance of hedging and boosting when reporting research results. Further, our results establish a baseline of the current use of these linguistic devices in HCI, adding to the current body of linguistic research. We finally contribute tools, procedures, and materials to facilitate future analyses of hedges and boosters in scientific communication. Reproducibility: All data and scripts are available on osf.io/kefmr/
Publisher: IEEE
Date: 09-2016
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 11-11-2021
Abstract: A comment on “For NGOs, article-processing charges sap conservation funds” by Wood et al.
Publisher: The Eurographics Association
Date: 2019
Publisher: ACM
Date: 02-05-2017
Publisher: ACM
Date: 19-04-2023
Publisher: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
Date: 22-07-2020
DOI: 10.1145/3360311
Abstract: Research replication only works if there is confidence built into the results.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 18-02-2022
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 02-03-2021
DOI: 10.1111/ECI.13518
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 18-06-2021
DOI: 10.1111/ECI.13599
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 18-09-2023
Publisher: ACM
Date: 29-08-2017
No related grants have been discovered for Lonni Besançon.