PhysicsOverflow: A postgraduate-level physics Q&A site and open peer review system

PhysicsOverflow is a high-level physics site intended to facilitate real-time discussion between academics and professional researchers in physics. It contains a graduate-level Q&A forum and an open peer review system for discussing and reviewing pre-prints. The Q&A forum is a physics counterpart of MathOverflow, accepting graduate-level physics questions, while the Reviews section is an open peer review system that intends to complement peer reviewing in conventional journals. There is also an "Open Problems" section to allow researchers to communicate and collaborate on their research problems, and a "Chat" section for more informal discussions relating to physics. Content may be commented and voted on to discuss the accuracy of posts. Moderation and policy discussions are done by the community, which can, through voting, decide on issues like closing questions and deleting posts. The site generally receives about 50,000 page views a month, and has received the attention of professional physicists, including string theorists, condensed matter theorists, experimentalists and mathematical physicists from around the globe.

Download Full-text

Peer Reviewing in Political Science: New Survey Results

Political Science and Politics ◽

10.1017/s1049096514002315 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 48 (02) ◽

pp. 346-352 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Paul A. Djupe

Keyword(s):

Political Science ◽

Peer Review ◽

Random Sample ◽

Specific Charge ◽

Peer Review System ◽

Review System ◽

The Past ◽

Peer Reviewing ◽

Survey Results ◽

Made In

ABSTRACTCharges are frequently leveled that the peer-review system is broken, and reviewers are overburdened with requests. But this specific charge has been made in the absence of data about the actual reviewing loads of political scientists. I report the results of a recent survey asking a random sample of about 600 APSA members with PhDs what their reviewing loads are like and what their beliefs are about the value of peer reviewing to them and others. Article reviewing loads correspond to rank, institution, and scholarly productivity in predictable ways. At PhD-granting institutions, assistant professors averaged 5.5, associate professors averaged 7.0, and full professors averaged 8.3 in the past year; everyone else averaged just under 3 reviews a year. To recognize the value we place on peer reviewing, we need a system that collects data on who reviews and presents them in a format usable by scholars and their relevant evaluation bodies.

Download Full-text

Peer Review system: A Systematic Review

Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics ◽

10.3329/bioethics.v9i1.37104 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 9 (1) ◽

pp. 13-23

Author(s):

Shamima Parvin Lasker

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Review Process ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Research Integrity ◽

Systemic Review ◽

Peer Review System ◽

Review System ◽

The People ◽

Peer Reviewing ◽

Office Of Research Integrity

Peer review process helps in evaluating and validating of research that is published in the journals. U.S. Office of Research Integrity reported that data fraudulence was found to be involved in 94% cases of misconduct from 228 identified articles between 1994–2012. If fraud in published article are significantly as high as reported, the question arise in mind, were these articles peer reviewed? Another report said that the reviewers failed to detect 16 cases of fabricated article of Jan Hendrick Schon. Superficial peer reviewing process does not reveals suspicion of misconduct. Lack of knowledge of systemic review process not only demolish the academic integrity in publication but also loss the trust of the people of the institution, the nation, and the world. The aim of this review article is to aware stakeholders specially novice reviewers about the peer review system. Beginners will understand how to review an article and they can justify better action choices in dealing with reviewing an article.

Download Full-text