scholarly journals PEER REVIEW IS THE CORNERSTONE OF SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATION. PUBLONS IS AN INSTRUMENT FOR SCIENTISTS, JOURNAL MANAGERS AND ADMINISTRATORS

2019 ◽  
pp. 85-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
I.O. Tykhonkova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Communication

scholarly journals Response latency in social psychological research

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian A. Nosek
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Communication ◽  
Psychological Research ◽  
Social Psychological ◽  
Public Science ◽  
Barriers To Change ◽  
The Status ◽  
Social Psychological Research ◽  
The One ◽  
Published Research

Existing norms for scientific communication are rooted in anachronistic practices of bygone eras, making them needlessly inefficient. We outline a path that moves away from the existing model of scientific communication to improve the efficiency in meeting the purpose of public science – knowledge accumulation. We call for six changes: (1) full embrace of digital communication, (2) open access to all published research, (3) disentangling publication from evaluation, (4) breaking the “one article, one journal” model with a grading system for evaluation and diversified dissemination outlets, (5) publishing peer review, and, (6) allowing open, continuous peer review. We address conceptual and practical barriers to change, and provide examples showing how the suggested practices are being used already. The critical barriers to change are not technical or financial; they are social. While scientists guard the status quo, they also have the power to change it.

scholarly journals Controvérsias sobre Redes Abertas de Produção de Conhecimento e de Comunicação Científica │ Controversies on Knowledge Production and Scientific Communication Open Networks

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christiana Soares de Freitas
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Sharing ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Scientific Communication ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Review System ◽  
Open Networks ◽  
Communication Processes ◽  
Central Elements

RESUMO O objetivo do artigo é analisar questões centrais associadas ao conceito de ciência aberta na sociedade contemporânea, evidenciando características  de modos distintos de produção de conhecimento. Processos de comunicação científica  são discutidos, com foco em  temas como o sistema aberto de revisão por pares, direitos autorais e domínio público, concluindo com uma reflexão crítica a respeito das possibilidades de transformação das características tradicionais do campo de produção de conhecimento a partir da adoção de normas e práticas desenvolvidas em redes de ciência aberta.Palavras-chave: Ciência Aberta; Conhecimento Compartilhado; Processos de Avaliação; Direitos Autorais; Comunicação Científica.ABSTRACT This article aims at discussing central elements associated to the concept of  open science in contemporary societies, pointing out some characteristics that can be associated to distinct modes of knowledge production. Scientific communication processes are discussed, focusing on issues such as the open peer review system, copyright and public domain, concluding with critical considerations about the possibilities of transforming traditional characteristics of the knowledge production field through the adoption of norms and practices developed in open science networks.Keywords: Open Science; Knowledge Sharing; Evaluation Processes; Copyright; Scientific Communication.

scholarly journals Can editors protect peer review from bad reviewers?

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael D'Andrea ◽  
James P O'Dwyer
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Structural Changes ◽  
Scientific Communication ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Current Form ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Editorial Strategies ◽  
Published Research

Peer review is the gold standard for scientific communication, but its ability to guarantee the quality of published research remains difficult to verify. Recent modeling studies suggest that peer review is sensitive to reviewer misbehavior, and it has been claimed that referees who sabotage work they perceive as competition may severely undermine the quality of publications. Here we examine which aspects of suboptimal reviewing practices most strongly impact quality, and test different mitigating strategies that editors may employ to counter them. We find that the biggest hazard to the quality of published literature is not selfish rejection of high-quality manuscripts but indifferent acceptance of low-quality ones. Blacklisting bad reviewers and consulting additional reviewers to settle disagreements can reduce but not eliminate the impact. The other editorial strategies we tested do not significantly improve quality, but pairing manuscripts to reviewers unlikely to selfishly reject them and allowing revision of rejected manuscripts minimize rejection of above-average manuscripts. In its current form, peer review offers few incentives for impartial reviewing efforts. Editors can help, but structural changes are more likely to have a stronger impact.

scholarly journals Credibility of Preprints: An interdisciplinary Survey of Researchers

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Courtney K. Soderberg ◽  
Timothy M. Errington ◽  
Brian A. Nosek
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Scientific Communication ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Science Content ◽  
Independent Verification ◽  
Wide Range

Preprints increase accessibility and can speed scholarly communication if researchers view them as credible enough to read and use. Preprint services, though, do not provide the heuristic cues of a journal’s reputation, selection, and peer review processes that are often used as a guide for deciding what to read. We conducted a survey of 3,759 researchers across a wide range of disciplines to determine the importance of different cues for assessing the credibility of individual preprints and preprint services. We found that cues related to information about open science content and independent verification of author claims were rated as highly important for judging preprint credibility. As of early 2020, very few preprint services display any of these cues. By adding such cues, services may be able to help researchers better assess the credibility of preprints, enabling scholars to more confidently use preprints, thereby accelerating scientific communication and discovery.

scholarly journals Preprint articles as a tool for teaching data analysis and scientific communication

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (12) ◽  
pp. e0261622
Author(s):  
Lisa Z. Scheifele ◽  
Nikolaos Tsotakos ◽  
Michael J. Wolyniak
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Information Literacy ◽  
Cognitive Apprenticeship ◽  
Scientific Communication ◽  
Research Data ◽  
Cognitive Approach ◽  
Pedagogical Tool ◽  
Data Presentation ◽  
Students First ◽  
Apprenticeship Model

The skill of analyzing and interpreting research data is central to the scientific process, yet it is one of the hardest skills for students to master. While instructors can coach students through the analysis of data that they have either generated themselves or obtained from published articles, the burgeoning availability of preprint articles provides a new potential pedagogical tool. We developed a new method in which students use a cognitive apprenticeship model to uncover how experts analyzed a paper and compare the professional’s cognitive approach to their own. Specifically, students first critique research data themselves and then identify changes between the preprint and final versions of the paper that were likely the results of peer review. From this activity, students reported diverse insights into the processes of data presentation, peer review, and scientific publishing. Analysis of preprint articles is therefore a valuable new tool to strengthen students’ information literacy and understanding of the process of science.

scholarly journals Can editors protect peer review from bad reviewers?

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael D'Andrea ◽  
James P O'Dwyer
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Structural Changes ◽  
Scientific Communication ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Current Form ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Editorial Strategies ◽  
Published Research

Peer review is the gold standard for scientific communication, but its ability to guarantee the quality of published research remains difficult to verify. Recent modeling studies suggest that peer review is sensitive to reviewer misbehavior, and it has been claimed that referees who sabotage work they perceive as competition may severely undermine the quality of publications. Here we examine which aspects of suboptimal reviewing practices most strongly impact quality, and test different mitigating strategies that editors may employ to counter them. We find that the biggest hazard to the quality of published literature is not selfish rejection of high-quality manuscripts but indifferent acceptance of low-quality ones. Blacklisting bad reviewers and consulting additional reviewers to settle disagreements can reduce but not eliminate the impact. The other editorial strategies we tested do not significantly improve quality, but pairing manuscripts to reviewers unlikely to selfishly reject them and allowing revision of rejected manuscripts minimize rejection of above-average manuscripts. In its current form, peer review offers few incentives for disinterested reviewing efforts. Editors can help, but structural changes are more likely to have a stronger impact.

scholarly journals Can editors save peer review from peer reviewers?

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael D'Andrea ◽  
James P O'Dwyer
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Structural Changes ◽  
Scientific Communication ◽  
Current Form ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Editorial Strategies ◽  
Published Research

Peer review is the gold standard for scientific communication, but its ability to guarantee the quality of published research remains difficult to verify. Recent modeling studies suggest that peer review is sensitive to reviewer misbehavior, and it has been claimed that referees who sabotage work they perceive as competition may severely undermine the quality of publications. Here we examine which aspects of suboptimal reviewing practices most strongly impact quality, and test different mitigating strategies that editors may employ to counter them. We find that the biggest hazard to the quality of published literature is not selfish rejection of high-quality manuscripts but indifferent acceptance of low-quality ones. Bypassing or blacklisting bad reviewers and consulting additional reviewers to settle disagreements can reduce but not eliminate the impact. The other editorial strategies we tested do not significantly improve quality, but pairing manuscripts to reviewers unlikely to selfishly reject them and allowing revision of rejected manuscripts minimize rejection of above-average manuscripts. In its current form, peer review offers few incentives for impartial reviewing efforts. Editors can help, but structural changes are more likely to have a stronger impact.

scholarly journals Can editors protect peer review from bad reviewers?

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael D'Andrea ◽  
James P O'Dwyer
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Structural Changes ◽  
Scientific Communication ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Current Form ◽  
Golden Standard ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Editorial Strategies ◽  
Published Research

Peer review is the golden standard for scientific communication, but its ability to guarantee the quality of published research remains difficult to verify. Recent modeling studies suggest that peer review is sensitive to misbehavior by reviewers, and it has been claimed that referees who sabotage work they perceive as competition may severely undermine the quality of publications. Here we examine which aspects of suboptimal reviewing practices most strongly impact quality, and test different mitigating strategies that editors may employ to counter them. We find that the biggest hazard to the quality of published literature is not selfish rejection of high-quality manuscripts but indifferent acceptance of low-quality ones. Blacklisting bad reviewers and consulting additional reviewers to settle disagreements can reduce but not eliminate the impact. The other editorial strategies we tested do not significantly improve quality, but pairing manuscripts to reviewers unlikely to selfishly reject them and allowing revision of rejected manuscripts minimize rejection of above-average manuscripts. In its current form, peer review offers few incentives for disinterested reviewing efforts. Editors can help, but structural changes are more likely to have a stronger impact.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document