Shadow Program Committee Initiative

2021 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 16-18
Author(s):  
Patanamon Thongtanunam ◽  
Ayushi Rastogi ◽  
Foutse Khomh ◽  
Serge Demeyer ◽  
Meiyappan Nagappan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Research Community ◽  
Program Committee ◽  
Early Career ◽  
New Faculty ◽  
Great Chance ◽  
Good Review ◽  
Initiative Program

The Shadow Program Committee (PC) is an initiative/program that provides an opportunity to Early-Career Researchers (ECRs), i.e., PhD students, postdocs, new faculty members, and industry practitioners, who have not been in a PC, to learn rst-hand about the peer-review process of the technical track at Software Engi- neering (SE) conferences. This program aims to train the next generation of PC members as well as to allow ECRs to be recog- nized and embedded in the research community. By participating in this program, ECRs will have a great chance i) to gain expe- rience about the reviewing process including the restrictions and ethical standards of the academic peer-review process; ii) to be mentored by senior researchers on how to write a good review; and iii) to create a network with other ECRs and senior researchers (i.e., Shadow PC advisors). The Shadow PC program was rst introduced to the SE research community at the Mining Software Repositories (MSR) confer- ence in 2021. The program was led by Patanamon Thongta- nunam and Ayushi Rastogi (Shadow PC Co-chairs) with support from Shadow PC Advisor Co-Chairs (Foutse Khomh and Serge Demeyer), PC Co-Chairs of the technical track (Meiyappan Na- gappan and Kelly Blincoe), and the General Chair of the con- ference, Gregorio Robles. To promote and facilitate the Shadow PC program at SE conferences in the future, this report provides details about the process and a re ection on the Shadow PC pro- gram during MSR2021. The presentation slides and video are also available online at https://youtu.be/ReUXwmtIEk8.

scholarly journals A Guide to Preprinting for Early Career Researchers

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cassandra Lane Ettinger ◽  
Madhumala K. Sadanandappa ◽  
Kivanc Görgülü ◽  
Karen Coghlan ◽  
Kenneth K. Hallenbeck ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Life Sciences ◽  
Research Community ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Early Career Researchers

The use of preprints, research manuscripts shared publicly before the traditional peer review process, is becoming more common in the life sciences. Early career researchers (ECRs) benefit from posting preprints as they are shareable, citable, and prove productivity. However, the decision to preprint a manuscript involves a discussion among all co-authors, and ECRs are often not the decision-makers. Therefore, ECRs may find themselves in situations where they are interested in posting a preprint but are unsure how to approach their co-authors or advisor about preprinting. Leveraging our own experiences as ECRs, and feedback from the research community, we have constructed a guide for ECRs who are considering preprinting - to enable them to take ownership over the process, and to raise awareness about preprinting options. We hope that this guide helps ECRs to initiate conversations about preprinting with co-authors or consider whether to preprint their future research.

scholarly journals Peer Review Process in Scholarly Communication and Scientific Publishing

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 15-19
Author(s):  
Bishnu Bahadur Khatri
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
The Public ◽  
Quality Control Mechanism

Peer review in scholarly communication and scientific publishing, in one form or another, has always been regarded as crucial to the reputation and reliability of scientific research. In the growing interest of scholarly research and publication, this paper tries to discuss about peer review process and its different types to communicate the early career researchers and academics.This paper has used the published and unpublished documents for information collection. It reveals that peer review places the reviewer, with the author, at the heart of scientific publishing. It is the system used to assess the quality of scientific research before it is published. Therefore, it concludes that peer review is used to advancing and testing scientific knowledgeas a quality control mechanism forscientists, publishers and the public.

scholarly journals How to choose and become a reviewer for a scientific medical journal

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 151
Author(s):  
Paola Gnerre ◽  
Giorgio Vescovo ◽  
Paola Granata ◽  
Cecilia Politi ◽  
Andrea Fontanella ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Journal ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Modern Science ◽  
Scholarly Work ◽  
Publication Delay ◽  
Area Of Interest ◽  
Good Review

Peer review is the process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. The peer review of scientific manuscripts is a cornerstone of modern science and medicine. Some journals have difficulty in finding appropriate reviewers who are able to complete reviews on time avoiding publication delay. We discuss some of the main issues involved during the peer review process. The reviewer has a direct and important impact on the quality of a scientific medical Journal. Editors select reviewers on the basis of their expertise. Reviewers are more likely to accept to review a manuscript when it is relevant to their area of interest. They should respond to ethical principles, excluding any conflict of interest condition. The reviewer has to be professional, constructive, tactful, empathetic and respectful. Structured approaches, quality indicators and step-by-step process check list formats could be useful in obtaining a good review.

scholarly journals Accuracy in detecting inadequate research reporting by early career peer reviewers using an online CONSORT-based peer-review tool (COBPeer) versus the usual peer-review process: a cross-sectional diagnostic study

BMC Medicine ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Chauvin ◽  
Philippe Ravaud ◽  
David Moher ◽  
David Schriger ◽  
Sally Hopewell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Diagnostic Study ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Link Type ◽  
The Mean

Abstract Background The peer review process has been questioned as it may fail to allow the publication of high-quality articles. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy in identifying inadequate reporting in RCT reports by early career researchers (ECRs) using an online CONSORT-based peer-review tool (COBPeer) versus the usual peer-review process. Methods We performed a cross-sectional diagnostic study of 119 manuscripts, from BMC series medical journals, BMJ, BMJ Open, and Annals of Emergency Medicine reporting the results of two-arm parallel-group RCTs. One hundred and nineteen ECRs who had never reviewed an RCT manuscript were recruited from December 2017 to January 2018. Each ECR assessed one manuscript. To assess accuracy in identifying inadequate reporting, we used two tests: (1) ECRs assessing a manuscript using the COBPeer tool (after completing an online training module) and (2) the usual peer-review process. The reference standard was the assessment of the manuscript by two systematic reviewers. Inadequate reporting was defined as incomplete reporting or a switch in primary outcome and considered nine domains: the eight most important CONSORT domains and a switch in primary outcome(s). The primary outcome was the mean number of domains accurately classified (scale from 0 to 9). Results The mean (SD) number of domains (0 to 9) accurately classified per manuscript was 6.39 (1.49) for ECRs using COBPeer versus 5.03 (1.84) for the journal’s usual peer-review process, with a mean difference [95% CI] of 1.36 [0.88–1.84] (p < 0.001). Concerning secondary outcomes, the sensitivity of ECRs using COBPeer versus the usual peer-review process in detecting incompletely reported CONSORT items was 86% [95% CI 82–89] versus 20% [16–24] and in identifying a switch in primary outcome 61% [44–77] versus 11% [3–26]. The specificity of ECRs using COBPeer versus the usual process to detect incompletely reported CONSORT domains was 61% [57–65] versus 77% [74–81] and to identify a switch in primary outcome 77% [67–86] versus 98% [92–100]. Conclusions Trained ECRs using the COBPeer tool were more likely to detect inadequate reporting in RCTs than the usual peer review processes used by journals. Implementing a two-step peer-review process could help improve the quality of reporting. Trial registration Clinical.Trials.govNCT03119376 (Registered April, 18, 2017).

scholarly journals Perspectives for early-career researchers on plagiarism and scientific integrity

FACETS ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-25
Author(s):  
Robert G. Young ◽  
T. Fatima Mitterboeck
Keyword(s):  
Graduate Students ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Investigation ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Scientific Integrity ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Early Career Researchers

Lapses in scientific integrity, such as plagiarism, persist in the scientific realm. To be successful and contributory, early-career researchers (ECRs), including graduate students, need to be able to effectively navigate the literature, peer-review process, and scientific research with integrity. Here we discuss different aspects of scientific integrity related to ECRs. Our discussion centres on the concepts of plagiarism and intellectual property, predatory journals, aspects of peer review, transparency in publishing, and false advanced accreditations. Negative elements within these topics may be especially damaging to ECRs, who may be less familiar with the research landscape. We highlight the need for ECRs to approach scientific investigation cautiously and thoughtfully to promote integrity through critical thinking.

scholarly journals How to publish your manuscript successfully (with Wiley)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matteo Cavalleri
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Training Module ◽  
Early Career Researchers

Part of the training module on publishing with the Council of Australian University Librarians, this 1h webinar provides tips to Early Career Researchers on how to write and accompany an article through the peer-review process. Not specific to Wiley journals, but why go elsewhere, really?

scholarly journals The benefits to climate science of including Early Career Scientists as reviewers

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathieu Casado ◽  
Gwenaëlle Gremion ◽  
Paul Rosenbaum ◽  
Jilda Alicia Caccavo ◽  
Kelsey Aho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Climate Science ◽  
Work Force ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Similar Proportion ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
Peer Reviewers

Abstract. Early Career Scientists (ECS) are a large part of the work force in science. While they produce new scientific knowledge that they share in publications, they are rarely invited to participate in the peer-review process. Barriers to the participation of ECS as peer-reviewers include, among others, their lack of visibility to editors, inexperience in the review process and lack of confidence in their scientific knowledge. Participation of ECS in group reviews, e.g. for assessment reports, provides an opportunity for ECS to advance their skill set and to contribute to policy relevant products. Here, we present the outcomes of a group peer-review of the first order draft of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report on Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (IPCC SROCC). Overall, PhD students spent more time on the review than those further advanced in their careers, and provided a similar proportion of substantive comments. After the review, participants reported feeling more confident about their skills, and 86 % were interested in reviewing individually. By soliciting and including ECS in the peer-review process, the scientific community would not only reduce the burden carried by more established scientists, but permit their successors to develop important professional skills relevant to advancing climate science and influencing policy.

scholarly journals PIA19+MRSS19 &#8211; PHOTOGRAMMETRIC IMAGE ANALYSIS 2019 & MUNICH REMOTE SENSING SYMPOSIUM 2019: PREFACE

2019 ◽  
Vol IV-2/W7 ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
U. Stilla
Keyword(s):  
Remote Sensing ◽  
Image Analysis ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Spatial Information ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Program Committee ◽  
Full Paper ◽  
Common Event ◽  
Remote Sensing Symposium

Abstract. Automated extraction of objects from remotely sensed data is an important topic of research in Computer Vision, Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing, and Geoinformation Science. In order to discuss recent developments and future trends in research in automatic object extraction and their influence on sensors and processing techniques, the well-known ISPRS workshop "Photogrammetric Image Analysis" (PIA) and the "Munich Remote Sensing Symposium" (MRSS) are held as a common event for the first time.While in the past PIA specialised on the automatic exploitation of the image content, MRSS focuses on the geometric processing of aerial and in particular of space imagery. Realising that both areas - geometry and semantics - can significantly support each other when considered together in exploitation of images and point clouds, the two events, organised under a common roof, are held at Technische Universität München (TUM) in September 2019. At the same time, they keep their identity, as the meeting is organised as two parallel workshops with common plenary sessions and common proceedings.The aim of the common event is to seek, exploit and deepen the synergies between geometry and semantics, and to give the two scientific communities the possibility to discuss with and to learn from each other. Oral sessions with time slots of 25 min give space of 5 min for discussion of each presentation. Particular attention is also given to the poster sessions, which are supported by short oral presentations of the presenter before. The joint event addresses experts from research, government, and private industry. It consists of high quality papers, and provides an international forum for discussion of leading research and technological developments as well as applications in the field. It is worth mentioning that the ISPRS Foundation, Inc. (TIF) supports the event by providing six travel grants to qualified individuals especially from developing countries and regions.Prospective authors were invited to submit either full papers or abstracts. In total, we received 114 contributions from 28 countries.Full papers (max. eight pages) underwent a rigorous double blind peer review process. We received 48 full papers for review. Most papers were reviewed by three members of the program committee, 16 papers were reviewed by four members of the program committee. In total we received 157 full paper reviews from 35 reviewers. The maximum number of full papers per reviewer was eight. Altogether 31 papers were accepted based on the reviews for publication in the “ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences” which correspond to an acceptance rate of 65%. The fact that the full papers were peer reviewed is mentioned on each paper.Papers not passing the full paper peer review process were considered in the following abstract review process. In total 83 contributions were reviewed for publication in “The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences”. Finally 42 final papers (51%) were considered for publication.

scholarly journals Establishing a Trainee Section in the CIM

2010 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sagar Dugani ◽  
Stephan Ong Tone
Keyword(s):  
Career Development ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Program Directors ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Global Community ◽  
Research Activities ◽  
The Creation

The Clinician Investigator Trainee Association of Canada – Association des cliniciens-chercheurs en formation du Canada (CITAC-ACCFC) is a national organization composed of MD+ trainees enrolled in MD/MSc, MD/PhD, and Clinician Investigator Programs (CIP) across Canada. In less than three years since its conception, CITAC-ACCFC has become an established organization with over 200 members from fifteen academic institutions. The mission of the CITAC-ACCFC is to organize and promote activities that support clinician investigator trainees in Canada, with the intention to improve academic and post-graduate career opportunities, expand institutional and public awareness of clinician investigator programs, and develop a nationally accessible information database of student and program development. The CITAC-ACCFC aims to improve the early-career conditions of clinician investigators in order to expand and advance innovative research initiatives within Canada. Throughout its development, CITAC-ACCFC has relied on the Canadian Society for Clinical Investigation (CSCI) for mentorship and guidance. In an exciting development, the relationship between CITAC-ACCFC and CSCI has enabled an innovative opportunity for early career development through a new collaboration- the creation of a Trainee Section in the Clinical and Investigative Medicine (CIM) journal. As a forum through which work on diverse topics can be shared with the global community, the CIM Trainee Section will create unique opportunities for professional development. Trainees in MD+ programs represent the next generation of clinical-investigators, who will integrate cutting edge research and compassionate patient care throughout their careers. Both professions require excellent communication skills, and through the Trainee Section, MD+ trainees, their supervisors, and MD+ Program Directors, will be able to focus on mentorship, academic training, financial planning, and career development, among other topics devoted to MD+ trainees. In addition to articles highlighting the research activities of trainees, the Trainee Section will feature clinical work, review articles, first chapter of theses, book reviews, and opinion pieces. This focus of the Trainee Section will complement CIM’s current focus on original research and issues of interest to the CSCI. It is therefore fitting to establish a Trainee Section that is dedicated to addressing issues arising at an earlier stage of training. As MD+ organizations are being established globally, the Trainee Section will strive to become an international forum that focuses on MD+ training. By increasing the international readership of CIM through the CITAC website, we will aim to engage MD+ trainees, program directors, university administration, and other leaders in education, to advocate for issues of national and global relevance. As trainees will be responsible for overseeing the editorial and peer-review process of the Trainee Section, we anticipate that this will provide an avenue by which to foster stronger interactions and collaborations among trainees on our Editorial Board, junior investigators, and senior faculty, while providing critical editorial experience for board members. Our team of Editors will ensure that articles are reviewed in a fair and timely manner, respecting the need to promptly publish articles of immediate relevance. We encourage all MD+ trainees to participate in the Trainee Section editorial and/or peer-review process. Additional details can be found on our website at: http://www.citac-accfc.org/portal/ As MD+ trainees, we are optimistic about the future of both basic science and clinical research. This is an exciting time to be an MD+ trainee, and we are confident that the creation of a Trainee Section will only augment this positive experience. We strongly encourage you to publish your work in the Trainee Section and become part of an emerging global community of MD+ trainees, who are keen on tackling health issues that affect us irrespective of our geographic, cultural, or racial borders. We look forward to receiving your articles.

How efficient are Early Career Scientists in peer-review activities?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathieu Casado ◽  
Gwenaëlle Gremion ◽  
Kelsey Aho ◽  
Jilda Caccavo ◽  
Nicolas Champollion ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
Science And Policy ◽  
Working Groups ◽  
Closing The Gap

&lt;p&gt;In our collective endeavour towards global sustainability, there is now a broad appreciation that producing scientifically robust knowledge requires new forms of engagement between scientists, stakeholders and society. But what is the role of Early Career Scientists (ECS) in these processes that are closing the gap between science and policy? Because opportunities to interact with more experienced peers through science refereeing are scarce, the role of ECS in the peer-review process remains minor despite ECS possessing strong academic credentials. Such engagement in the peer-review process represents a valuable opportunity for ECS and the scientific community as a whole. This opportunity provides a robust platform for ECS to understand the overall review process and editorial activities related to high-credibility publications such as those conducted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). During May/November 2018, 174 ECS on behalf of the Association of Polar Early Career Scientists (APECS) reviewed the first and second-order drafts of the IPCC &amp;#8220;Special Report on Ocean and Cryosphere and in a Changing Climate (SROCC)&amp;#8221;. Here, we present the methodology, results, and lessons learned from these group reviews. Altogether, data from participant surveys on their experience and their comments catalog illustrate ECS as competent reviewers, comparable to more experienced researchers. The diverse disciplines and geographic perspectives, fostered through APECS and its partners, are currently being mobilized in the First Order Draft of the Working Groups I and II of the Assessment Report 6 of the IPCC, and will continue during the second round of reviews of these reports in early 2020. Information gathered during these ongoing reviews will add to the findings obtained during the review of the SROCC.&lt;/p&gt;

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document