scholarly journals Converting Access Microbiology to an open research platform: community survey results

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (9) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandra M. Howat ◽  
Justin Clark
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Howard Hughes Medical Institute ◽  
Open Access Journal ◽  
Medical Institute ◽  
Project Proposal ◽  
Focus Group Research ◽  
Open Research ◽  
Research Platform ◽  
Review Model

Following the Microbiology Society’s successful bid for a Learned Society Curation Award from the Wellcome Trust and Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Society is converting our sound science, open access journal, Access Microbiology, to an open research platform. As part of this, we conducted a survey of our community to gauge current attitudes towards the platform and here we present some of these results. The majority of respondents (57 %) said they would always or sometimes want to remain anonymous on their peer review report, whilst 75 % of respondents said that as an author they would be happy to make the data underlying their research open. There was a clear desire for a range of research types that are often seen with sound science publications and rigorous research. An encouraging 94 % of respondents stated that the platform is somewhere they would consider publishing, demonstrating the enthusiasm in these respondents for a new publishing platform for their community. Given this data and that from our previous focus group research, the platform will launch as outlined in the original project proposal and adopt a transparent peer review model with an open data policy.

scholarly journals Converting Access Microbiology to an open research platform: focus group and AI review tool research results

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandra M. Howat ◽  
Alexander Mulhern ◽  
Hilary F. Logan ◽  
Gaynor Redvers-Mutton ◽  
Chris Routledge ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Focus Group ◽  
Howard Hughes Medical Institute ◽  
Medical Institute ◽  
Science Journal ◽  
Technical Feasibility ◽  
Group Feedback ◽  
Open Research ◽  
Research Platform ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
Academic Record

The Microbiology Society will be launching an open research platform in October 2021. Developed using funding from the Wellcome Trust and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), the platform will combine our current sound-science journal, Access Microbiology, with artificial intelligence (AI) review tools and many of the elements of a preprint server. In an effort to improve the rigour, reproducibility and transparency of the academic record, the Access Microbiology platform will host both preprints of articles and their Version of Record (VOR) publications, as well as the reviewer reports, Editor's decision, authors' response to reviewers and the AI review reports. To ensure the platform meets the needs of our community, in February 2020 we conducted focus group meetings with various stakeholders. Using articles previously submitted to Access Microbiology, we undertook testing of a range of potential AI review tools and investigated the technical feasibility and utility of including these tools as part of the platform. In keeping with the open and transparent ethos of the platform, we present here a summary of the focus group feedback and AI review tool testing.

scholarly journals Three funding organizations will launch new open access journal

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Fenner
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Howard Hughes Medical Institute ◽  
Open Access Journal ◽  
Medical Institute ◽  
Max Planck ◽  
Max Planck Society

Three leading funding organizations today made this important announcement:The Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Max Planck Society and the Wellcome Trust announced today that they are to support a new, top-tier, ...

scholarly journals Peer review practices by medical imaging journals

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas C. Kwee ◽  
Hugo J. A. Adams ◽  
Robert M. Kwee
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Medicine ◽  
Medical Imaging ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Correlation Coefficient ◽  
Manuscript Submission ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Review Model ◽  
Double Blinded

Abstract Objective To investigate peer review practices by medical imaging journals. Methods Journals in the category "radiology, nuclear medicine and medical imaging" of the 2018 Journal Citation Reports were included. Results Of 119 included journals, 62 (52.1%) used single-blinded peer review, 49 (41.2%) used double-blinded peer review, two (1.7%) used open peer review and one (0.8%) used both single-blinded and double-blinded peer reviews, while the peer review model of five journals (4.2%) remained unclear. The use of single-blinded peer review was significantly associated with a journal’s impact factor (correlation coefficient of 0.218, P = 0.022). On subgroup analysis, only subspecialty medical imaging journals had a significant association between the use of single-blinded peer review and a journal’s impact factor (correlation coefficient of 0.354, P = 0.025). Forty-eight journals (40.3%) had a reviewer preference option, 48 journals (40.3%) did not have a reviewer recommendation option, and 23 journals (19.3%) obliged authors to indicate reviewers on their manuscript submission systems. Sixty-four journals (53.8%) did not provide an explicit option on their manuscript submission Web site to indicate nonpreferred reviewers, whereas 55 (46.2%) did. There were no significant associations between the option or obligation to indicate preferred or nonpreferred reviewers and a journal’s impact factor. Conclusion Single-blinded peer review and the option or obligation to indicate preferred or nonpreferred reviewers are frequently employed by medical imaging journals. Single-blinded review is (weakly) associated with a higher impact factor, also for subspecialty journals. The option or obligation to indicate preferred or nonpreferred reviewers is evenly distributed among journals, regardless of impact factor.

scholarly journals Open Research Data and Open Peer Review: Perceptions of a Medical and Health Sciences Community in Greece

Publications ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 14
Author(s):  
Eirini Delikoura ◽  
Dimitrios Kouis
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Evaluation System ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Research Data ◽  
Stage Of Development ◽  
Open Research ◽  
Proper Training ◽  
To Receive

Recently significant initiatives have been launched for the dissemination of Open Access as part of the Open Science movement. Nevertheless, two other major pillars of Open Science such as Open Research Data (ORD) and Open Peer Review (OPR) are still in an early stage of development among the communities of researchers and stakeholders. The present study sought to unveil the perceptions of a medical and health sciences community about these issues. Through the investigation of researchers` attitudes, valuable conclusions can be drawn, especially in the field of medicine and health sciences, where an explosive growth of scientific publishing exists. A quantitative survey was conducted based on a structured questionnaire, with 179 valid responses. The participants in the survey agreed with the Open Peer Review principles. However, they ignored basic terms like FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) and appeared incentivized to permit the exploitation of their data. Regarding Open Peer Review (OPR), participants expressed their agreement, implying their support for a trustworthy evaluation system. Conclusively, researchers need to receive proper training for both Open Research Data principles and Open Peer Review processes which combined with a reformed evaluation system will enable them to take full advantage of the opportunities that arise from the new scholarly publishing and communication landscape.

Peer-review activists push psychology journals towards open data

Nature ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 543 (7644) ◽  
pp. 161-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gautam Naik
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Open Data

scholarly journals Sharing quality resources for teaching and learning: A peer review model for the ALTC Exchange in Australia

2009 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Geraldine Lefoe ◽  
Robyn Philip ◽  
Meg O'Reilly ◽  
Dominique Parrish
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Teaching And Learning ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
Teaching Resources ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Learning And Teaching ◽  
Work Spaces ◽  
Review Model ◽  
Teaching In Higher Education

<span>The ALTC Exchange (formerly the Carrick Exchange), is a national repository and networking service for Australian higher education. The Exchange was designed to provide access to a repository of shared learning and teaching resources, work spaces for team members engaged in collaborative projects, and communication and networking services. The Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) established the Exchange for those who teach, manage and lead learning and teaching in higher education. As part of the research conducted to inform the development of the Exchange, models for peer review of educational resources were evaluated. For this, a design based research approach was adopted. Findings from the literature and feedback from key practitioners and leaders within the sector are discussed in this paper. Finally, key recommendations for implementation are identified.</span>

scholarly journals Reforming Science Publishing

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Khaled Moustafa
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Publishing Industry ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Open Access Journal ◽  
The Past ◽  
Open Access Journals

Over the past few years, different changes have been introduced into the science publishing industry. However, important reforms are still required at both the content and form levels. First, the peer review process needs to be open, fair and transparent. Second, author-paid fees in open access journals need to either be removed or reconsidered toward more affordability. Third, the categorization of papers should include all types of scientific contributions that can be of higher interest to the scientific community than many mere quantitative and observable measures, or simply removed from publications. Forth, word counts and reference numbers in online open access journal should be nuanced or replaced by recommended ranges rather than to be a proxy of acceptance or rejection. Finally, all the coauthors of a manuscript should be considered corresponding authors and responsible for their mutual manuscript rather than only one or two.

scholarly journals No time for that now! Qualitative changes in manuscript peer review during the Covid-19 pandemic

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Serge P J M Horbach
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Scientific Enterprise ◽  
Considerable Impact ◽  
Editorial Decision ◽  
Evaluation Mechanism ◽  
Reader Comments ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
Review Model ◽  
Editorial Decisions

Abstract The global Covid-19 pandemic has had considerable impact on the scientific enterprise, including scholarly publication and peer review practices. Several studies have assessed these impacts, showing among others that medical journals have strongly accelerated their review processes for Covid-19 related content. This has raised questions and concerns regarding the quality of the review process and the standards to which manuscripts are held for publication. To address these questions, this study sets out to assess qualitative differences in review reports and editorial decision letters for Covid-19 related, articles not related to Covid-19 published during the 2020 pandemic, and articles published before the pandemic. It employs the open peer review model at the British Medical Journal and eLife to study the content of review reports, editorial decisions, author responses, and open reader comments. It finds no clear differences between review processes of articles not related to Covid-19 published during or before the pandemic. However, it does find notable diversity between Covid-19 and non-Covid-19 related articles, including fewer requests for additional experiments, more cooperative comments, and different suggestions to address too strong claims. In general, the findings suggest that both reviewers and journal editors implicitly and explicitly use different quality criteria to assess Covid-19 related manuscripts, hence transforming science’s main evaluation mechanism for their underlying studies and potentially affecting their public dissemination.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document