scholarly journals Beyond Journals and Peer Review: Towards a More Flexible Ecosystem for Scholarly Communication

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Wood
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Evaluation System ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Publishing Research ◽  
Human Knowledge ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Quality Work ◽  
Academic Knowledge ◽  
Subject Specific ◽  
New Ideas

This article challenges the assumption that journals and peer review are essential for developing, evaluating and disseminating scientific and other academic knowledge. It suggests a more flexible ecosystem, and examines some of the possibilities this might facilitate. The market for academic outputs should be opened up by encouraging the separation of the dissemination service from the evaluation service. Publishing research in subject-specific journals encourages compartmentalising research into rigid categories. The dissemination of knowledge would be better served by an open access, web-based repository system encompassing all disciplines. There would then be a role for organisations to assess the items in this repository to help users find relevant, high-quality work. There could be a variety of such organisations which could enable reviews from peers to be supplemented with evaluation by non-peers from a variety of different perspectives: user reviews, statistical reviews, reviews from the perspective of different disciplines, and so on. This should reduce the inevitably conservative influence of relying on two or three peers, and make the evaluation system more critical, multi-dimensional and responsive to the requirements of different audience groups, changing circumstances, and new ideas. Non-peer review might make it easier to challenge dominant paradigms, and expanding the potential audience beyond a narrow group of peers might encourage the criterion of simplicity to be taken more seriously - which is essential if human knowledge is to continue to progress.

scholarly journals Beyond Journals and Peer Review: Towards a More Flexible Ecosystem for Scholarly Communication

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Wood
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Evaluation System ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Publishing Research ◽  
Web Based ◽  
User Reviews ◽  
Academic Knowledge ◽  
Subject Specific ◽  
New Ideas

This article challenges the assumption that journals and peer review are essential for developing, evaluating and disseminating scientific and other academic knowledge. It suggests a more flexible ecosystem, and examines some of the possibilities this might facilitate. The market for academic outputs should be opened up by encouraging the separation of the dissemination service from the evaluation service. Publishing research in subject-specific journals encourages compartmentalizing research into rigid categories. The dissemination of knowledge would be better served by an open access, web-based repository system encompassing all disciplines. Reviews from peers should be supplemented by reviews from non-peers from a variety of different perspectives: user reviews, statistical reviews, reviews from the perspective of different disciplines, and so on. This should reduce the inevitably conservative influence of relying on two or three peers, and make the evaluation system more critical, multi-dimensional and responsive to the requirements of different audience groups, changing circumstances, and new ideas. Non-peer review might make it easier to challenge dominant paradigms, and expanding the potential audience beyond a narrow group of peers might encourage the criterion of simplicity to be taken more seriously - which is essential if knowledge is to continue to progress.

scholarly journals On Peer Review

2016 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 480-483 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jody Kreiman
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Human Knowledge ◽  
Important Research ◽  
High Quality ◽  
New Ideas ◽  
Culture Of Science

Purpose This letter briefly reviews ideas about the purpose and benefits of peer review and reaches some idealistic conclusions about the process. Method The author uses both literature review and meditation born of long experience. Results From a cynical perspective, peer review constitutes an adversarial process featuring domination of the weak by the strong and exploitation of authors and reviewers by editors and publishers, resulting in suppression of new ideas, delayed publication of important research, and bad feelings ranging from confusion to fury. More optimistically, peer review can be viewed as a system in which reviewers and editors volunteer thousands of hours to work together with authors, to the end of furthering human knowledge. Conclusion Editors and authors will encounter both peer-review cynics and idealists in their careers, but in the author's experience the second are far more prevalent. Reviewers and editors can help increase the positive benefits of peer review (and improve the culture of science) by viewing the system as one in which they work with authors on behalf of high-quality publications and better science. Authors can contribute by preparing papers carefully prior to submission and by interpreting reviewers' and editors' suggestions in this collegial spirit, however difficult this may be in some cases.

Faculty Attitudes Towards Open Access Publishing, E-Print Servers and Institutional Repositories

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Wust
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Faculty Attitudes ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Teaching And Research ◽  
Institutional Repositories ◽  
Etude Qualitative

This qualitative study investigates how faculty gather information for teaching and research and their opinions on open access approaches to scholarly communication. Despite generally favorable reactions, a perceived lack of peer review and impact factors were among the most common reasons for not publishing through open-access forums.Cette étude qualitative examine comment les membres du corps professoral recueillent l’information pour l’enseignement et la recherche, et leurs opinions envers les approches de la communication scientifique à libre accès. Malgré des réactions généralement favorables, le manque perçu de révision par les pairs et les facteurs d’impact comptent parmi les motifs habituellement évoqués pour ne pas publier sur ces tribunes à libre accès. 

Academic knowledge production and prefigurative politics

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (267-268) ◽  
pp. 163-167
Author(s):  
Beatriz P. Lorente
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Structural Characteristic ◽  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Academic Knowledge ◽  
Means And Ends ◽  
Sociology Of Language ◽  
Prefigurative Politics ◽  
Access Model

Abstract Inequality is the pervasive structural characteristic of academic knowledge production. To dismantle this inequality, the challenge raised by prefigurative politics which is based on an ethos of congruence between means and ends must be taken up by the International Journal of the Sociology of Language. The IJSL’s peer review process, its academic conventions and its access model can potentially be spaces for concrete practices that prefigure parity in academic knowledge production.

scholarly journals Open Research Data and Open Peer Review: Perceptions of a Medical and Health Sciences Community in Greece

Publications ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 14
Author(s):  
Eirini Delikoura ◽  
Dimitrios Kouis
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Evaluation System ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Research Data ◽  
Stage Of Development ◽  
Open Research ◽  
Proper Training ◽  
To Receive

Recently significant initiatives have been launched for the dissemination of Open Access as part of the Open Science movement. Nevertheless, two other major pillars of Open Science such as Open Research Data (ORD) and Open Peer Review (OPR) are still in an early stage of development among the communities of researchers and stakeholders. The present study sought to unveil the perceptions of a medical and health sciences community about these issues. Through the investigation of researchers` attitudes, valuable conclusions can be drawn, especially in the field of medicine and health sciences, where an explosive growth of scientific publishing exists. A quantitative survey was conducted based on a structured questionnaire, with 179 valid responses. The participants in the survey agreed with the Open Peer Review principles. However, they ignored basic terms like FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) and appeared incentivized to permit the exploitation of their data. Regarding Open Peer Review (OPR), participants expressed their agreement, implying their support for a trustworthy evaluation system. Conclusively, researchers need to receive proper training for both Open Research Data principles and Open Peer Review processes which combined with a reformed evaluation system will enable them to take full advantage of the opportunities that arise from the new scholarly publishing and communication landscape.

A Resident-Driven Mobile Evaluation System Can Be Used to Augment Traditional Surgery Rotation Evaluations

2021 ◽  
pp. 000313482110111
Author(s):  
Kurun Partap S Oberoi ◽  
Akia D Caine ◽  
Jacob Schwartzman ◽  
Sayeeda Rab ◽  
Amber L Turner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Education ◽  
Graduate Medical Education ◽  
General Surgery ◽  
Residency Program ◽  
Evaluation System ◽  
Clinical Rotation ◽  
Web Based ◽  
General Surgery Residency ◽  
Surgery Residency Program ◽  
To Receive

Background The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires residents to receive milestone-based evaluations in key areas. Shortcomings of the traditional evaluation system (TES) are a low completion rate and delay in completion. We hypothesized that adoption of a mobile evaluation system (MES) would increase the number of evaluations completed and improve their timeliness. Methods Traditional evaluations for a general surgery residency program were converted into a web-based form via a widely available, free, and secure application and implemented in August 2017. After 8 months, MES data were analyzed and compared to that of our TES. Results 122 mobile evaluations were completed; 20% were solicited by residents. Introduction of the MES resulted in an increased number of evaluations per resident ( P = .0028) and proportion of faculty completing evaluations ( P = .0220). Timeliness also improved, with 71% of evaluations being completed during one’s clinical rotation. Conclusions A resident-driven MES is an inexpensive and effective method to augment traditional end-of-rotation evaluations.

scholarly journals Developing a peer review process for web-based curricula

2004 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 594-598 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher L. Knight ◽  
Henry A. Sakowski ◽  
Bruce L. Houghton ◽  
Mary B. Laya ◽  
Dawn E. DeWitt
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Web Based

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document