scholarly journals Revisão por pares aberta em questão: uma breve análise sistemática

2020 ◽  
pp. 118-122
Author(s):  
Patricia Pedri ◽  
Ronaldo Ferreira Araújo
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Scientific Publication ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Review System ◽  
Present Evidence ◽  
Qualitative And Quantitative ◽  
Open Review ◽  
The Subject

It presents a systematic literature review with the intention of highlighting the stage of studies in Portuguese about open peer review. This is a literature search with a qualitative and quantitative approach in order to present an overview of the studies published on the subject. Most of the articles surveyed were published or presented in the 2017-2018 biennium in journals or events in the area of Information Science. The articles state that the open peer review enables greater transparency in the scientific publication process, in addition to other advantages. However, some presente, in addition to disadvantages, contradictions in the editors and reviewers positions about open review. There was a need for new studies that present evidence on the practice of peer review to assist in a better understanding of the open peer review system and point out new perspectives.

scholarly journals Are disruption index indicators convergently valid? The comparison of several indicator variants with assessments by peers

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 1242-1259
Author(s):  
Lutz Bornmann ◽  
Sitaram Devarakonda ◽  
Alexander Tekles ◽  
George Chacko
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Convergent Validity ◽  
Scientific Publication ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Regression Analyses ◽  
Review System ◽  
New Family ◽  
New Findings ◽  
Better Than

Recently, Wu, Wang, and Evans (2019) proposed a new family of indicators, which measure whether a scientific publication is disruptive to a field or tradition of research. Such disruptive influences are characterized by citations to a focal paper, but not its cited references. In this study, we are interested in the question of convergent validity. We used external criteria of newness to examine convergent validity: In the postpublication peer review system of F1000Prime, experts assess papers whether the reported research fulfills these criteria (e.g., reports new findings). This study is based on 120,179 papers from F1000Prime published between 2000 and 2016. In the first part of the study we discuss the indicators. Based on the insights from the discussion, we propose alternate variants of disruption indicators. In the second part, we investigate the convergent validity of the indicators and the (possibly) improved variants. Although the results of a factor analysis show that the different variants measure similar dimensions, the results of regression analyses reveal that one variant ( DI5) performs slightly better than the others.

A different method of teaching peer review systems.

1998 ◽  
Vol 274 (6) ◽  
pp. S57 ◽  
Author(s):  
J T Lightfoot
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Knowledge Bases ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Review System ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Open Review ◽  
Single Blind ◽  
A Current

Students often have difficulty grasping the advantages of the various peer review systems used in scientific publishing. In the described exercise, students are assigned a current study and then write three two-page critiques of the article. The three critiques occur at different times in the semester, and thus the students have differing knowledge bases. The critiques are then assigned to other students for peer review using the double-blind, single-blind, or open review systems. After the submission of each peer review, the class discusses the various advantages and disadvantages of each peer review system. In addition to experiencing peer review, in using this method students also gain an appreciation for the difficulty of judging the merit of a peer's work.

scholarly journals How Many Papers Should Scientists Be Reviewing? An Analysis Using Verified Peer Review Reports

Publications ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 4
Author(s):  
Vincent Raoult
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Publication ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Review System ◽  
Research Fields ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Minimum Number ◽  
Review Reports

The current peer review system is under stress from ever increasing numbers of publications, the proliferation of open-access journals and an apparent difficulty in obtaining high-quality reviews in due time. At its core, this issue may be caused by scientists insufficiently prioritising reviewing. Perhaps this low prioritisation is due to a lack of understanding on how many reviews need to be conducted by researchers to balance the peer review process. I obtained verified peer review data from 142 journals across 12 research fields, for a total of over 300,000 reviews and over 100,000 publications, to determine an estimate of the numbers of reviews required per publication per field. I then used this value in relation to the mean numbers of authors per publication per field to highlight a ‘review ratio’: the expected minimum number of publications an author in their field should review to balance their input (publications) into the peer review process. On average, 3.49 ± 1.45 (SD) reviews were required for each scientific publication, and the estimated review ratio across all fields was 0.74 ± 0.46 (SD) reviews per paper published per author. Since these are conservative estimates, I recommend scientists aim to conduct at least one review per publication they produce. This should ensure that the peer review system continues to function as intended.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document