scholarly journals Open up: a survey on open and non-anonymized peer reviewing

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lonni Besançon ◽  
Niklas Rönnberg ◽  
Jonas Löwgren ◽  
Jonathan P. Tennant ◽  
Matthew Cooper
Keyword(s):  
Human Computer Interaction ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Qualitative Data ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Quantitative Result ◽  
Human Interaction ◽  
Practical Implementation ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Open Review ◽  
Computer Interaction

Abstract Background 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. Methods 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. Results 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 https://osf.io/vuw7h/, and the figures and follow-up work on http://tiny.cc/OpenReviews. Conclusion 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 divergence between support for a more open review process and its practical implementation.

scholarly journals Open Up: A Survey on Open and Non-anonymized Peer Reviewing

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lonni Besançon ◽  
Niklas Rönnberg ◽  
Jonas Löwgren ◽  
Jonathan P. Tennant ◽  
Matthew Cooper
Keyword(s):  
Human Computer Interaction ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Practical Implementation ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Open Review

We present a discussion and analysis regarding the benefits and limitations of open and non-anonymized peer review based on literature results and responses to a survey on the reviewing process of alt.chi, a more or less open-review track within the CHI conference, the predominant conference in the field of human-computer interaction (HCI). This track currently is the only implementation of an open-peer-review process in the field of HCI while, with the recent increase in interest in open science practices, open review is now being considered and used in other fields. We collected 30 responses from alt.chi authors and reviewers and found that, while the benefits are quite clear and the system is generally well liked by alt.chi participants, they are reluctant to see it used in other venues. This concurs with a number of recent studies that suggest a divergence between support for a more open review process and its practical implementation. The data and scripts are available on https://osf.io/vuw7h/, and the figures and follow-up work on http://tiny.cc/OpenReviews.

scholarly journals Open Up: A Survey on Open and Non-anonymized Peer Reviewing

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lonni Besançon ◽  
Niklas Rönnberg ◽  
Jonas Löwgren ◽  
Jonathan Tennant ◽  
Matthew Cooper
Keyword(s):  
Human Computer Interaction ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Practical Implementation ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Open Review

We present a discussion and analysis regarding the benefits and limitations of open and non-anonymized peer review based on literature results and responses to a survey on the reviewing process of alt.chi, a more or less open-review track within the CHI conference, the predominant conference in the field of human-computer interaction (HCI). This track currently is the only implementation of an open-peer-review process in the field of HCI while, with the recent increase in interest in open science practices, open review is now being considered and used in other fields. We collected 30 responses from alt.chi authors and reviewers and found that, while the benefits are quite clear and the system is generally well liked by alt.chi participants, they are reluctant to see it used in other venues. This concurs with a number of recent studies that suggest a divergence between support for a more open review process and its practical implementation. The data and scripts are available on https://osf.io/vuw7h/, and the figures and follow-up work on http://tiny.cc/OpenReviews.

PACMHCI V5, CHI PLAY, September 2021 Editorial

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (CHI PLAY) ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
Kathrin Gerling ◽  
Elisa Mekler ◽  
Regan L. Mandryk
Keyword(s):  
Human Computer Interaction ◽  
Quantitative Methods ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Program Committee ◽  
Human Interaction ◽  
Global Pandemic ◽  
Review Form ◽  
Working Together ◽  
Development And Validation ◽  
Computer Interaction

Since its inaugural edition in 2014, the ACM SIGCHI Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY) has grown to become the premier ACM SIGCHI venue for playercomputer interaction, bringing together researchers and professionals across all areas of play, games, and human-computer interaction. This year, CHI PLAY has moved its publications to a journal-based model, and we are pleased to present the first issue of the Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction that contains full paper contributions from the CHI PLAY community. This issue has 64 papers that were accepted in the 2021 cycle of the CHI PLAY conference. Over two rounds, a total of 250 papers were submitted for review and our acceptance rate is 25.6%. Thework published in this volume represents the contributions from the 2021 program committee, including external reviewers, associate chairs, and editors. Together, we have engaged in a revised reviewing process that saw several major changes. First, we moved to a revise and resubmit process to address existing inequities in submission and review, improve the quality of the review process, and increase the reach of our community's research. Second, we made major changes to our review form to improve the review process, while also easing the burden of review, along with explicitlywelcoming different contribution types and managing the complexities of interdisciplinary evaluation. We would like to acknowledge the efforts that our community has made in adapting to this new process, ensuring rigorous review during a global pandemic, and working together with the submitting authors to achieve high-quality scholarship. In this issue, the majority of contributions are empirical in nature, with fifteen papers classified by the authors as using qualitative methods, fifteen using quantitative methods, and nine using mixed methods. We also publish seven papers presenting design artefacts and three presenting technical artefacts. Finally, we include four papers employing meta-research methods, two papers that present new methodological approaches, and nine papers that contribute to the development and validation of theory.

scholarly journals RETRACTION:  How blockchain-timestamped protocols could improve the trustworthiness of medical science

F1000Research ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 805
Author(s):  
Greg Irving ◽  
John Holden
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Medical Science ◽  
Link Type

At the request of the authors Greg Irving and John Holden, the article titled “How blockchain-timestamped protocols could improve the trustworthiness of medical science” has been retracted from F1000Research. The authors have taken this decision after considering the methodological concerns raised by a peer reviewer during the post-publication open peer review process. As the methodology has been deemed to be unreliable, the article is now retracted. This applies to all three versions of the article: Irving G and Holden J. How blockchain-timestamped protocols could improve the trustworthiness of medical science [version 1; referees: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2016, 5:222 (doi: 10.12688/f1000research.8114.1) Irving G and Holden J. How blockchain-timestamped protocols could improve the trustworthiness of medical science [version 2; referees: 3 approved]. F1000Research 2016, 5:222 (doi: 10.12688/f1000research.8114.2) Irving G and Holden J. How blockchain-timestamped protocols could improve the trustworthiness of medical science [version 3; referees: 3 approved, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2017, 5:222 (doi: 10.12688/f1000research.8114.3).

scholarly journals From the Editor in Chief

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. viii-ix
Author(s):  
Ahmet Doğanay
Keyword(s):  
Data Analysis ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Qualitative Data ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Good News ◽  
High Rate ◽  
Critical Problems ◽  
Busy Schedule

Dear producers and consumers of knowledge, I would like to share the happiness of being with you again with 9th Volume 1th first issue of Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction (PEGEGOG) in 2019. I hope you could find time to have a rest after your busy schedule. Initially, I want to thank you for the increasing interest for our journal. There has been 98 articles sent for publication to our journal. This is good news for our journal. On the other hand, I have to indicate that there were critical problems in terms of format within these articles as stated in the previous issue. First of all, unfortunately we had to reject some articles as in many of them there were texts very similar to ones in different articles. At first step, we scan all articles in i-Thenticate program to determine the exact quotations from other resources. After this scan, we reject the articles detected to have exact quotations at a high rate without initiating peer-review process. Apart from that, we also send back the articles not written in an academic format not to disturb our reviewers unnecessarily. One of the problems with the articles submitted to our journal and we had to reject was about data analysis. The data is the raw information collected from related resources through research aims. These should be analyzed in parallel with these aims. It is necessary to analyze them using statistics for quantitative data and methods such as content analysis or descriptive analysis for qualitative data. Analysis provides the data being transformed into findings and make sense. Especially, in some of document analysis and some qualitative studies, it is seen that data are presented as findings. In some others, data are presented being only described. It is essential that the studies are formed in an article format obeying the rules by the journal and presented for publication afterwards. As always, we present the ten articles got through peer-review process and given DOI number to you dear producers and consumers of knowledge. I wish these studies conducted in various fields of educational sciences will be useful and contribute to theoretical knowledge within the field. Hope to meet within the next issue. Sincerely yours,

Web Usability

2005 ◽  
pp. 3074-3078
Author(s):  
Shirley Ann Becker
Keyword(s):  
User Interface ◽  
Human Computer Interaction ◽  
Interest Group ◽  
Personal Computer ◽  
User Interfaces ◽  
User Satisfaction ◽  
Ease Of Use ◽  
Human Interaction ◽  
Computing Machinery ◽  
Computer Interaction

The study of computing technology and user interfaces was initiated during the 1970s when industrial research laboratories began to focus on human-computer interaction (HCI) (Badre, 2002). In the 1980s, the personal computer was introduced, thus expanding the need for designing effective user interfaces. HCI became a discipline during this time, and the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) established the Special Interest Group in Computer Human Interaction. One of the first textbooks on HCI, Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction (Schneiderman, 19891), was published. Shortly thereafter, HCI became part of the ACM curriculum promoting the development of effective user interfaces. Software tools were developed in order to assist in designing usable interfaces while employing usability engineering methods. Many of these methods focused on usability from the perspective of ease of use, ease of learning, user satisfaction, and zero defects (Nielsen, 1993).

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).

Collaborative Business and Information Systems Design

2009 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Rittgen
Keyword(s):  
Information Systems ◽  
Human Computer Interaction ◽  
Systems Design ◽  
Human Interaction ◽  
Information Systems Design ◽  
Research Areas ◽  
Technical Systems ◽  
Computer Interaction

Collaborative business and information systems design touches a number of issues that lie within the realm of different research areas. It deals with design as such, and in particular with design in and for groups. It is also concerned with socio-technical systems and hence with human-computer interaction as well as IT-mediated human-human interaction. This introduces collaboration issues. The significant complexity of the business and information systems that are in the focus of the design endeavor calls for modeling as an instrument for managing this complexity. This article maps the terrain of collaborative business and information systems design by surveying the contributions that are made by related areas of research.

Collaborative Design of Business and Information Systems

2011 ◽  
pp. 255-270
Author(s):  
Peter Rittgen
Keyword(s):  
Information Systems ◽  
Human Computer Interaction ◽  
Collaborative Design ◽  
Human Interaction ◽  
Research Areas ◽  
Technical Systems ◽  
Computer Interaction

The collaborative design of business and information systems touches a number of issues that lie within the realm of different research areas. It deals with design as such and in particular with design in and for groups. It is also concerned with socio-technical systems and hence with human-computer interaction as well as IT-mediated human-human interaction. This introduces collaboration issues. The significant complexity of the business and information systems that are in the focus of the design endeavor calls for modeling as an instrument for managing this complexity. This paper maps the terrain of collaborative design of business and information systems by surveying the contributions that are made by related areas of research.

Usability

2011 ◽  
pp. 1008-1013
Author(s):  
Shawren Singh
Keyword(s):  
Human Computer Interaction ◽  
Computer Systems ◽  
Human Interaction ◽  
Software System ◽  
Technical Performance ◽  
Hardware And Software System ◽  
Computer Interaction

In this article we will examine some important issues related to human-computer interaction (HCI). This will be followed by a discussion of usability and its underlying principles and properties. The dependability of computer systems is intrinsically multi-faceted. Dependable hardware is patently of limited value unless accompanied by dependable software. Neither helps greatly if human interaction with the hardware and software system is fault-prone and the dependable socio-technical performance of an inappropriate task may cause wider damage (MacKenzie, 2000).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document