An incentive mechanism-based framework to assure the quality of self-organizing peer review in preprint

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ying He ◽  
Kun Tian ◽  
Jiangyang Fu

PurposePreprint has become an important vehicle for academic communications and discussions. However, in preprint, there is a lack of a sufficient quality control mechanism such as peer review, which is a proven quality assurance practice that is used in traditional academic publishing services. To address the problem leveraging on the power of this practice, the authors introduce into preprint a self-organizing peer review method by applying the concept of token economy and the blockchain technology.Design/methodology/approachSpecifically, this paper proposes an idea that applies the token economy concept to the design of the incentive and penalty mechanisms for peer reviewers in preprint to assure the qualities of its publications. Steemit has been studied to demonstrate the characteristics of the mechanisms.FindingsA token economy-enhanced framework for self-organizing peer review in preprint is also proposed. The resulting preprint system is an academic community-oriented, self-organizing and blockchain-based content publishing system that is designed to run on both permissioned and permissionless blockchains.Research limitations/implicationsFirst, since peer review is on a voluntary basis and not profits oriented, the “monetary” incentive and penalty mechanisms borrowed from Steemit may conflict with academic ethics. Second, the authors proposed to deploy the authors’ token economy on blockchain, but the current mainstream decentralized blockchain services are too few to warrant a foreseeable successful future for the authors’ application. In fact, as the flagship of blockchain 2.0, the Ethereum blockchain suffers from the problem of scalability, which leads to its applications' lower performances, longer response times and eventually more negative user experiences as time goes by. Finally, the authors’ proposed version of preprint has not been implemented, and hence, its practical effectiveness and acceptance by academia are yet to be evaluated.Practical implicationsIn this paper, the authors proposed a token economy-based framework for self-organizing peer review in preprint leveraging on blockchain technology. This framework encourages positive interactions between authors and reviewers, which helps to establish a healthy academic ecology that produces more contents with better qualities. Application of a solution based on the authors’ framework should impact the current academic communities by offering a new academic peer reviewing tool that has a built-in mechanism for self-behavior correction and quality assurance.Social implicationsThrough adaption, the framework can be applied to other domains as well. In such domains, a large amount of feedbacks from partakers are needed and there exists a tremendous amount of work to filter noises in feedbacks so as to ensure that as many the quality ones as possible are delivered for a variety of purposes. The authors’ framework essentially impacts almost all domains where there exists a need to collect and filter large amount of feedbacks, and using the authors’ framework-based solution is cost-saving, which can be seen as a major potential contribution of the research.Originality/valueThe incentive and penalty mechanisms encourage positive interactions between authors and reviewers, and it helps to establish a healthy academic ecology that produces high-volume contents with good qualities.

Publications ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bo-Christer Björk ◽  
Sari Kanto-Karvonen ◽  
J. Tuomas Harviainen

Predatory journals are Open Access journals of highly questionable scientific quality. Such journals pretend to use peer review for quality assurance, and spam academics with requests for submissions, in order to collect author payments. In recent years predatory journals have received a lot of negative media. While much has been said about the harm that such journals cause to academic publishing in general, an overlooked aspect is how much articles in such journals are actually read and in particular cited, that is if they have any significant impact on the research in their fields. Other studies have already demonstrated that only some of the articles in predatory journals contain faulty and directly harmful results, while a lot of the articles present mediocre and poorly reported studies. We studied citation statistics over a five-year period in Google Scholar for 250 random articles published in such journals in 2014 and found an average of 2.6 citations per article, and that 56% of the articles had no citations at all. For comparison, a random sample of articles published in the approximately 25,000 peer reviewed journals included in the Scopus index had an average of 18, 1 citations in the same period with only 9% receiving no citations. We conclude that articles published in predatory journals have little scientific impact.


2020 ◽  
Vol 44 (5) ◽  
pp. 1057-1076
Author(s):  
Mike Thelwall ◽  
Eleanor-Rose Papas ◽  
Zena Nyakoojo ◽  
Liz Allen ◽  
Verena Weigert

PurposePeer reviewer evaluations of academic papers are known to be variable in content and overall judgements but are important academic publishing safeguards. This article introduces a sentiment analysis program, PeerJudge, to detect praise and criticism in peer evaluations. It is designed to support editorial management decisions and reviewers in the scholarly publishing process and for grant funding decision workflows. The initial version of PeerJudge is tailored for reviews from F1000Research's open peer review publishing platform.Design/methodology/approachPeerJudge uses a lexical sentiment analysis approach with a human-coded initial sentiment lexicon and machine learning adjustments and additions. It was built with an F1000Research development corpus and evaluated on a different F1000Research test corpus using reviewer ratings.FindingsPeerJudge can predict F1000Research judgements from negative evaluations in reviewers' comments more accurately than baseline approaches, although not from positive reviewer comments, which seem to be largely unrelated to reviewer decisions. Within the F1000Research mode of post-publication peer review, the absence of any detected negative comments is a reliable indicator that an article will be ‘approved’, but the presence of moderately negative comments could lead to either an approved or approved with reservations decision.Originality/valuePeerJudge is the first transparent AI approach to peer review sentiment detection. It may be used to identify anomalous reviews with text potentially not matching judgements for individual checks or systematic bias assessments.


2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (5) ◽  
pp. 779-794 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maha Mourad

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the understanding of stakeholders of the Polish higher education sector to the internal quality assurance (QA) system and its role as a driver of information management strategy. Design/methodology/approach The paper employs a qualitative approach. It started with an exploratory research in the form of 12 in-depth interviews with the Bologna process experts, followed by empirical research via 30 face-to-face interviews with key educational informants in five selected universities in Poland. Findings The findings show that a key element for a successful implementation of the QA system is the stakeholders’ own understanding of the rationale behind it as an information management strategy. In addition, the study places emphasis on the priorities in front of the top-level management to create the quality and information culture within the academic community. Originality/value The study assists in finding global practical and creating a benchmark for policymakers concerning the information management strategies based on the Polish experience.


2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 332-347 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lu Xiao ◽  
Nicole Askin

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine academics’ awareness of and attitudes towards Wikipedia and Open Access journals for academic publishing to better understand the perceived benefits and challenges of these models. Design/methodology/approach – Bases for analysis include comparison of the models, enumeration of their advantages and disadvantages, and investigation of Wikipedia's web structure in terms of potential for academic publishing. A web survey was administered via department-based invitations and listservs. Findings – The survey results show that: Wikipedia has perceived advantages and challenges in comparison to the Open Access model; the academic researchers’ increased familiarity is associated with increased comfort with these models; and the academic researchers’ attitudes towards these models are associated with their familiarity, academic environment, and professional status. Research limitations/implications – The major limitation of the study is sample size. The result of a power analysis with GPower shows that authors could only detect big effects in this study at statistical power 0.95. The authors call for larger sample studies that look further into this topic. Originality/value – This study contributes to the increasing interest in adjusting methods of creating and disseminating academic knowledge by providing empirical evidence of the academics’ experiences and attitudes towards the Open Access and Wikipedia publishing models. This paper provides a resource for researchers interested in scholarly communication and academic publishing, for research librarians, and for the academic community in general.


2017 ◽  
Vol 73 (2) ◽  
pp. 263-283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valerie Spezi ◽  
Simon Wakeling ◽  
Stephen Pinfield ◽  
Claire Creaser ◽  
Jenny Fry ◽  
...  

Purpose Open-access mega-journals (OAMJs) represent an increasingly important part of the scholarly communication landscape. OAMJs, such as PLOS ONE, are large scale, broad scope journals that operate an open access business model (normally based on article-processing charges), and which employ a novel form of peer review, focussing on scientific “soundness” and eschewing judgement of novelty or importance. The purpose of this paper is to examine the discourses relating to OAMJs, and their place within scholarly publishing, and considers attitudes towards mega-journals within the academic community. Design/methodology/approach This paper presents a review of the literature of OAMJs structured around four defining characteristics: scale, disciplinary scope, peer review policy, and economic model. The existing scholarly literature was augmented by searches of more informal outputs, such as blogs and e-mail discussion lists, to capture the debate in its entirety. Findings While the academic literature relating specifically to OAMJs is relatively sparse, discussion in other fora is detailed and animated, with debates ranging from the sustainability and ethics of the mega-journal model, to the impact of soundness-only peer review on article quality and discoverability, and the potential for OAMJs to represent a paradigm-shifting development in scholarly publishing. Originality/value This paper represents the first comprehensive review of the mega-journal phenomenon, drawing not only on the published academic literature, but also grey, professional and informal sources. The paper advances a number of ways in which the role of OAMJs in the scholarly communication environment can be conceptualised.


2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan M. Allen

PurposeThe academic community has warned that predatory journals may attempt to capitalize on the confusion caused by the COVID-19 pandemic to further publish low quality academic work, eroding the credibility of scholarly publishing.Design/methodology/approachThis article first chronicles the risks of predatory publishing, especially related to misinformation surrounding health research. Next, the author offers an empirical investigation of how predatory publishing has engaged with COVID-19, with an emphasis on journals related to virology, immunology and epidemiology as identified through Cabells' Predatory Reports, through a content analysis of publishers' websites and a comparison to a sample from DOAJ.FindingsThe empirical findings show that there were 162 titles related to these critical areas from journals listed on Cabells with a range of infractions, but most were defunct and only 39 had published on the pandemic. Compared to a DOAJ comparison group, the predatory journal websites were less likely to mention slowdowns to the peer review process related to the pandemic. Furthermore, another 284 predatory journals with COVID-19 engagement were uncovered from the initial exploration. These uncovered journals mostly centered on medical or biological science fields, while 42 titles came from other broader fields in social science, other STEM or humanities.Originality/valueThis study does not prove that predatory publications have released misinformation pertaining to COVID-19, but rather it exemplifies the potential within a complex academic publishing space. As these outlets have proven to be vectors of misleading science, libraries and the broader educational community need to stay vigilant as information intermediaries of online research.


2017 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 278-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabel M. Santos ◽  
Graciete Dias

Purpose The European Standards and Guidelines (ESG) for quality assurance (QA) adopted at the Bergen Ministerial Meeting in 2005 in the scope of the Bologna process call upon higher education institutions to take up a systematic approach to internal QA. Standard 1.1 of the ESG establishes that institutions should have a policy and associated procedures for the assurance of the quality and standards of their programmes and awards. University of Minho (UMinho) has a longstanding experience on innovative methods for the coordination and management of the teaching and learning processes, including, since 1991, systematic mechanisms for the evaluation of teaching. However, to fulfil the new demands raised by the ESG UMinho felt the need to define a formal institutional quality policy, building upon the existing procedures and mechanisms in order to set up a comprehensive internal QA system (SIGAQ-UM) fully compatible with the ESG. The purpose of this paper is to present the distinctive features of SIGAQ-UM, the procedures involved in its certification by Agency for Assessment and Accreditation of Higher Education (A3ES), as well as on the perceived impact on the university’s activities, including some comments on the difficulties to develop and consolidate a quality culture embedded in all the academic community. Design/methodology/approach Case study approach. Findings SIGAQ-UM is a fully operational comprehensive internal QA system certified by the Portuguese Agency A3ES in January 2013, with considerable impact on the university’s operation. Originality/value Disclosure of best practices on QA in higher education.


Author(s):  
Tine S. Prøitz

AbstractIn this chapter, the role of scholarly peers in systematic review is analysed and discussed. Peer evaluation is an essential element of quality assurance of the strictly defined methods of systematic review. The involvement of scholarly peers in the systematic review processes has similarities with traditional peer review processes in academic publishing, but also important differences. Drawing on an analysis of the functions of peers in systematic review relevant questions for all peers are raised regarding what peer work is about and what peers in varied academic contexts including systematic review are ‘gatekeepers’ of? In systematic review, peers are not only making re-judgements of already reviewed and published research but also gatekeeping the given standards, guidelines and procedures of the review method. The analysis lays a groundwork for a debate on peers in different contexts framed by different processes with different purposes, and questions whether a peer review is the same when the premise of the scholarly activity changes.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shantel Buggs ◽  
Jennifer Sims ◽  
Rory Kramer

This critical reply engages in a critique of the prominence of “white logic” and “white methods” (Zuberi and Bonilla-Silva 2008) in academic publishing. We assess how the construction and proliferation of white knowledge(s) shapes analysis and interpretation, argumentation, peer review, and ultimately, publication. We call for a rejection of what we name “white distraction” and encourage the academic community to move toward more inclusive and decolonial modes of thinking, reviewing, and publishing.


2015 ◽  
Vol 39 (5) ◽  
pp. 649-663 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andy Tattersall

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is twofold, first, to discuss the current and future issues around post-publication open peer review. Second, to highlight some of the main protagonists and platforms that encourages open peer review, pre-and post-publication. Design/methodology/approach – The first part of the paper aims to discuss the facilitators and barriers that will enable and prevent academics engaging with the new and established platforms of scholarly communication and review. These issues are covered with the intention of proposing further dialogue within the academic community that ultimately address researchers’ concerns, whilst continuing to nurture a progressive approach to scholarly communication and review. The paper will continue to look at the prominent open post-publication platforms and tools and discuss whether in the future it will become a standard model. Findings – The paper identifies several problems, not exclusive to open peer review that could inhibit academics from being open with their reviews and comments of other’s research. Whilst identifies opportunities to be had by embracing a new era of academic openness. Practical implications – The paper summarises key platforms and arguments for open peer review and will be of interest to researchers in different disciplines as well as the wider academic community wanting to know more about scholarly communications and measurement. Originality/value – This paper looks at many of the new platforms that have been previously ignored and discusses issues relating to open peer review that have only been touched on in brief by other published research.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document