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 Credibility of preprints: an interdisciplinary survey of researchers

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
pp. 201520
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 do not provide the heuristic cues of a journal's reputation, selection, and peer-review processes that, regardless of their flaws, are often used as a guide for deciding what to read. We conducted a survey of 3759 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, and peer views and author information were rated as less important. As of early 2020, very few preprint services display any of the most important 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 Open Science in the Humanities, or: Open Humanities?

Publications ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcel Knöchelmann
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Essential Elements ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Open Research ◽  
Scientific Disciplines ◽  
Communication Practices ◽  
Do So

Open science refers to both the practices and norms of more open and transparent communication and research in scientific disciplines and the discourse on these practices and norms. There is no such discourse dedicated to the humanities. Though the humanities appear to be less coherent as a cluster of scholarship than the sciences are, they do share unique characteristics which lead to distinct scholarly communication and research practices. A discourse on making these practices more open and transparent needs to take account of these characteristics. The prevalent scientific perspective in the discourse on more open practices does not do so, which confirms that the discourse’s name, open science, indeed excludes the humanities so that talking about open science in the humanities is incoherent. In this paper, I argue that there needs to be a dedicated discourse for more open research and communication practices in the humanities, one that integrates several elements currently fragmented into smaller, unconnected discourses (such as on open access, preprints, or peer review). I discuss three essential elements of open science—preprints, open peer review practices, and liberal open licences—in the realm of the humanities to demonstrate why a dedicated open humanities discourse is required.

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 Reviewers' Decision to Sign Reviews is Related to Their Recommendation

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nino Van Sambeek ◽  
Daniel Lakens
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Royal Society ◽  
Positive Attitude ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Behavioral Data ◽  
Raw Data ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Scientific Disciplines ◽  
Wide Range

Surveys indicate that researchers generally have a positive attitude towards open peer review when this consists of making reviews available alongside published articles. Researchers are more negative about revealing the identity of reviewers. They worry reviewers will be less likely to express criticism if their identity is known to authors. Experiments suggest that reviewers are somewhat less likely to recommend rejection when they are told their identity will be communicated to authors, than when they will remain anonymous. One recent study revealed reviewers in five journals who voluntarily signed their reviews gave more positive recommendations than those who did not sign their reviews. We replicate and extend this finding by analyzing 12010 open reviews in PeerJ and 4188 reviews in the Royal Society Open Science where authors can voluntarily sign their reviews. These results based on behavioral data from real peer reviews across a wide range of scientific disciplines demonstrate convincingly that reviewers’ decision to sign is related to their recommendation. The proportion of signed reviews was higher for more positive recommendations, than for more negative recommendations. We also share all 23649 text-mined reviews as raw data underlying our results that can be re-used by researchers interested in peer review.

scholarly journals Scientific Publishing: Education as the Key Enabler for the Transition to Open Science

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mario Pagliaro
Keyword(s):  
Computer Science ◽  
Publishing Industry ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Scientific Communication ◽  
Open Science ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Scientific Disciplines ◽  
Publishing Education ◽  
Young Researchers

After showing how the advent of the internet, in an almost opposite fashion to what happened to newspaper publishing, has led to further flourishing of the $25 billion scholarly publishing industry, I show how the unexpected expansion of preprints to all scientific disciplines beyond physics, mathematics and computer science is actually reshaping scientific communication at large and then, inevitably, scientific publishing. I thus provide arguments substantiating my viewpoint on why and how expanding the education of today’s students and young researchers to include modern scholarly communication will be instrumental for the transition to open science.

scholarly journals Publishing Scientific Articles in the Digital Era

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mario Pagliaro
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Open Science ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Academic Journals ◽  
Digital Era ◽  
Conventional Process ◽  
And Mathematics ◽  
Education Of Students ◽  
Young Researchers

In the digital era in which over 4 billion people regularly access the internet, the conventional process of publishing scientific articles in academic journals following peer review is undergoing profound changes. Following physics and mathematics scholars who started to publish their work on the freely accessible arXiv server in the early 1990s, researchers of all disciplines increasingly publish scientific articles in the form of freely accessible and fully citeable preprints before or in parallel to conventional submission to academic journals for peer review. The full transition to open science, I argue in this study, requires to expand the education of students and young researchers to include scholarly communication in the digital era.

scholarly journals Scientific Publishing: Education as the Key Enabler for the Transition to Open Science

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mario Pagliaro
Keyword(s):  
Publishing Industry ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Scientific Communication ◽  
Open Science ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Annual Income ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Publishing Education ◽  
Young Researchers

Originally created for facilitating scientific communication, the internet in principle makes scientific journals no longer necessary. Yet, in an almost opposite fashion to what happened to newspaper publishing, the $25 billion annual income scholarly publishing industry has further flourished following the advent of the internet. Expanding the education of today’s students and young researchers to include modern scholarly communication is the key requisite for the transition to open science.

scholarly journals Ensuring effective scholarly communication: traditions and innovations of peer review

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-17
Author(s):  
Elena V. Tikhonova ◽  
Lilia K. Raitskaya
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Scientific Communication ◽  
Fundamental Importance ◽  
The World

The fundamental importance of the peer review in the context of scientific communication determines the unprecedented attention paid to it by researchers around the world. New trends in scientific communication are reflected in the transformation of the forms of peer review and the roles of its stakeholders. Within the framework of this article, the challenges faced by a modern reviewer are analyzed, the transforming models of peer review are presented, and the most significant issues generated by the logic of the development of the peer review process are outlined.

scholarly journals The State of The Art in Peer Review

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Tennant
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
State Of The Art ◽  
Parallel Evolution ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Changing Environments ◽  
Open Research ◽  
Explosive Wave ◽  
Science Movement ◽  
Insight Into

Scholarly communication is in a perpetual state of disruption. Within this, peer review of research articles remains an essential part of the formal publication process, distinguishing it from virtually all other modes of communication. In the last several years, there has been an explosive wave of innovation in peer review research, platforms, discussions, tools, and services. This is largely coupled with the ongoing and parallel evolution of scholarly communication as it adapts to rapidly changing environments, within what is widely considered as the ‘open research’ or ‘open science’ movement. Here, we summarise the current ebb and flow around changes to peer review and consider its role in a modern digital research and communications infrastructure and discuss why uptake of new models of peer review appears to have been so low compared to what is often viewed as the ‘traditional’ method of peer review. Finally, we offer some insight into the potential futures of scholarly peer review and consider what impacts this might have on the broader scholarly research ecosystem.

scholarly journals Publishing scientific articles in the digital era

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mario Pagliaro
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Open Science ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Academic Journals ◽  
Digital Era ◽  
Conventional Process ◽  
And Mathematics ◽  
Education Of Students ◽  
Young Researchers

In the digital era in which over 4 billion people regularly access the internet, the conventional process of publishing scientific articles in academic journals following peer review is undergoing profound changes. Following physics and mathematics scholars who started to publish their work on the freely accessible arXiv server in the early 1990s, researchers of all disciplines increasingly publish scientific articles in the form of freely accessible and fully citeable preprints before or in parallel to conventional submission to academic journals for peer review. The full transition to open science, I argue in this study, requires to expand the education of students and young researchers to include scholarly communication in the digital era.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document