scholarly journals Enhancing scientific dissemination in neuroscience via preprint peer-review: “Peer Community In Circuit Neuroscience”

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. e9
Author(s):  
Marion Mercier ◽  
Vincent Magloire ◽  
Mahesh Karnani
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Unmet Need ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Biomedical Science ◽  
Rigorous Evaluation ◽  
New Era ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
Scientific Results ◽  
Peer Community

The dissemination of scientific results and new technologies in biomedical science is rapidly evolving from an exclusive and fee-oriented publishing system towards more open, free and independent strategies for sharing knowledge. In this context, preprint servers such as bioRxiv answer a very real scientific need by enabling the rapid, free and easy dissemination of findings, regardless of whether these are novel, replicated, or even showcasing negative results. Currently, thousands of manuscripts are being shared via bioRxiv each month, and neuroscience is the largest and fastest growing subject category. However, commenting on bioRxiv is declining and no structured scientific validation such as peer-review is currently available. The Peer Community In (PCI) platform addresses this unmet need by facilitating the rigorous evaluation and validation of preprints, and PCI Circuit Neuroscience (PCI C Neuro) aims to develop and extend this tool for the neuroscience community. Here we discuss PCI C Neuro’s mission, how it works, and why it is an essential initiative in this new era of open science.

scholarly journals New approaches to peer review in the age of online, open-access publishing

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melanie J Hopkins
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Electronic Publishing ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Financial Burden ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Non Profit ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
Scientific Results ◽  
Peer Community

“Electronic publishing” can mean a variety of things, but for the dissemination of scientific results, there are two major categories: 1) materials that have not gone through peer-review, such as community-database entries, presentations from conferences, and manuscripts posted on preprint servers; and 2) materials that have gone through peer-review and are subsequently posted online. In the latter case, the process of peer-review is usually managed by a body of editors associated with a journal. If a manuscript is published by such a journal, the reader can be assured that it went through the peer-review process successfully. In the last decade or so, journals have started to abandon printed issues of peer-reviewed articles and are now publishing exclusively online; there have also been a proliferation of new online-only journals. Concurrently, there has been a shift towards open-access publishing, which, while making scientific studies more broadly available, has also transferred the financial burden from the reader or subscriber to the authors and funding agencies. Lastly, there has been a shift in how manuscripts on preprint servers are viewed, and it is increasingly common in many scientific fields for authors to post a finalized manuscript to a preprint server prior to submission to a journal. This talk will describe the “Peer Community In” (PCI) Project, which is a non-profit organization that was established in response to these major shifts in scientific publishing. The PCI Project is comprised of communities of researchers working in different fields (including paleontology), who peer review and recommend research articles publicly available on preprint servers. The goal is to promote rigorous scientific study by providing an alternative to traditional avenues for peer-reviewed publishing.

scholarly journals New approaches to peer review in the age of online, open-access publishing

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melanie J Hopkins
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Electronic Publishing ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Financial Burden ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Non Profit ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
Scientific Results ◽  
Peer Community

“Electronic publishing” can mean a variety of things, but for the dissemination of scientific results, there are two major categories: 1) materials that have not gone through peer-review, such as community-database entries, presentations from conferences, and manuscripts posted on preprint servers; and 2) materials that have gone through peer-review and are subsequently posted online. In the latter case, the process of peer-review is usually managed by a body of editors associated with a journal. If a manuscript is published by such a journal, the reader can be assured that it went through the peer-review process successfully. In the last decade or so, journals have started to abandon printed issues of peer-reviewed articles and are now publishing exclusively online; there have also been a proliferation of new online-only journals. Concurrently, there has been a shift towards open-access publishing, which, while making scientific studies more broadly available, has also transferred the financial burden from the reader or subscriber to the authors and funding agencies. Lastly, there has been a shift in how manuscripts on preprint servers are viewed, and it is increasingly common in many scientific fields for authors to post a finalized manuscript to a preprint server prior to submission to a journal. This talk will describe the “Peer Community In” (PCI) Project, which is a non-profit organization that was established in response to these major shifts in scientific publishing. The PCI Project is comprised of communities of researchers working in different fields (including paleontology), who peer review and recommend research articles publicly available on preprint servers. The goal is to promote rigorous scientific study by providing an alternative to traditional avenues for peer-reviewed publishing.

scholarly journals An Open Science Peer Review Oath

F1000Research ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 271 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jelena Aleksic ◽  
Adrian Alexa ◽  
Teresa K Attwood ◽  
Neil Chue Hong ◽  
Martin Dahlö ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Method ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Societal Impact ◽  
Scientific Methods ◽  
Research Results ◽  
Research Findings

One of the foundations of the scientific method is to be able to reproduce experiments and corroborate the results of research that has been done before. However, with the increasing complexities of new technologies and techniques, coupled with the specialisation of experiments, reproducing research findings has become a growing challenge. Clearly, scientific methods must be conveyed succinctly, and with clarity and rigour, in order for research to be reproducible. Here, we propose steps to help increase the transparency of the scientific method and the reproducibility of research results: specifically, we introduce a peer-review oath and accompanying manifesto. These have been designed to offer guidelines to enable reviewers (with the minimum friction or bias) to follow and apply open science principles, and support the ideas of transparency, reproducibility and ultimately greater societal impact. Introducing the oath and manifesto at the stage of peer review will help to check that the research being published includes everything that other researchers would need to successfully repeat the work. Peer review is the lynchpin of the publishing system: encouraging the community to consciously (and conscientiously) uphold these principles should help to improve published papers, increase confidence in the reproducibility of the work and, ultimately, provide strategic benefits to authors and their institutions.

scholarly journals The Open Science Peer Review Oath

F1000Research ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 271 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jelena Aleksic ◽  
Adrian Alexa ◽  
Teresa K Attwood ◽  
Neil Chue Hong ◽  
Martin Dahlö ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Knowledge Creation ◽  
Scientific Method ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Societal Impact ◽  
Scientific Methods ◽  
Citizen Scientist ◽  
Societal Value ◽  
Research Findings

One of the foundations of the scientific method is to be able to reproduce experiments and corroborate the results of research that has been done before. However, with the increasing complexities of new technologies and techniques, coupled with the specialisation of experiments, reproducing research findings has become a growing challenge. Clearly, scientific methods must be conveyed succinctly, and with clarity and rigour, in order for research to be reproducible. Here, we propose steps to help increase the transparency of the scientific method and the reproducibility of research results: specifically, we introduce a peer-review oath and accompanying manifesto. These have been designed to offer guidelines to enable reviewers (with the minimum friction or bias) to follow and apply open science principles, and support the ideas of transparency, reproducibility and ultimately greater societal impact. Introducing the oath and manifesto at the stage of peer review will help to check that the research being published includes everything that other researchers would need to successfully repeat the work. Peer review is the lynchpin of the publishing system: encouraging the community to consciously (and conscientiously) uphold these principles should help to improve published papers, increase confidence in the reproducibility of the work and, ultimately, provide strategic benefits to authors and their institutions. Future incarnations of the various national Research Excellence Frameworks (REFs) will evolve away from simple citations towards measurable societal value and impact. The proposed manifesto aspires to facilitate this goal by making transparency, reproducibility and citizen-scientist engagement (with the knowledge-creation and dissemination processes) the default parameters for performing sound research.

scholarly journals Open science and modified funding lotteries can impede the natural selection of bad science

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (7) ◽  
pp. 190194 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul E. Smaldino ◽  
Matthew A. Turner ◽  
Pablo A. Contreras Kallens
Keyword(s):  
Natural Selection ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Computational Modelling ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Strategic Behaviour ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
False Discoveries ◽  
Selection Of

Assessing scientists using exploitable metrics can lead to the degradation of research methods even without any strategic behaviour on the part of individuals, via ‘the natural selection of bad science.’ Institutional incentives to maximize metrics like publication quantity and impact drive this dynamic. Removing these incentives is necessary, but institutional change is slow. However, recent developments suggest possible solutions with more rapid onsets. These include what we call open science improvements , which can reduce publication bias and improve the efficacy of peer review. In addition, there have been increasing calls for funders to move away from prestige- or innovation-based approaches in favour of lotteries. We investigated whether such changes are likely to improve the reproducibility of science even in the presence of persistent incentives for publication quantity through computational modelling. We found that modified lotteries, which allocate funding randomly among proposals that pass a threshold for methodological rigour, effectively reduce the rate of false discoveries, particularly when paired with open science improvements that increase the publication of negative results and improve the quality of peer review. In the absence of funding that targets rigour, open science improvements can still reduce false discoveries in the published literature but are less likely to improve the overall culture of research practices that underlie those publications.

scholarly journals Open science and modified funding lotteries can impede the natural selection of bad science

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Smaldino ◽  
Matthew Adam Turner ◽  
Pablo Andrés Contreras Kallens
Keyword(s):  
Natural Selection ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Strategic Behavior ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
Methodological Rigor ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
False Discoveries ◽  
Selection Of

Assessing scientists using exploitable metrics can lead to the degradation of research methods even without any strategic behavior on the part of individuals, via "the natural selection of bad science." Institutional incentives to maximize metrics like publication quantity and impact drive this dynamic. Removing these incentives is necessary, but institutional change is slow. However, recent developments suggest possible solutions with more rapid onsets. These include what we call open science improvements, which can reduce publication bias and improve the efficacy of peer review. In addition, there have been increasing calls for funders to move away from prestige- or innovation-based approaches in favor of lotteries. We investigated whether such changes are likely to improve the reproducibility of science even in the presence of persistent incentives for publication quantity through computational modeling. We found that modified lotteries, which allocate funding randomly among proposals that pass a threshold for methodological rigor, effectively reduce the rate of false discoveries, particularly when paired with open science improvements that increase the publication of negative results and improve the quality of peer review. In the absence of funding that targets rigor, open science improvements can still reduce false discoveries in the published literature but are less likely to improve the overall culture of research practices that underlie those publications.

Reshaping the publication process: Addiction Research & Theory joins Peer Community In Registered Reports

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Rebecca Pennington ◽  
Derek Heim
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Study Protocol ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Full Spectrum ◽  
Study Methodology ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Peer Community ◽  
Process Addiction

This Editorial outlines two Registered Report (RR) formats offered by Addiction Research and Theory (ART): the ‘traditional’ RR route and the new ‘Peer Community in RR’ initiative. In the former, authors submit their study protocol for pre-study peer-review, allowing for assessment and peer feedback regarding the validity of the research questions and the study methodology prior to data collection (or in the case of secondary data, data analysis). High quality proposals then receive In Principle Acceptance (IPA), meaning that the journal commits to publishing the study regardless of its findings, so long as the protocol is followed appropriately, and an evidence-based interpretation of the results is undertaken. In the latter, authors follow a similar workflow, but submit their study protocol through PCI RR; a community driven initiative that reviews and recommends RRs across the full spectrum of STEM, medicine, social sciences, and the humanities. As a ‘PCI RR friendly journal’, ART commits to publishing any recommended articles which receive acceptance via this route, without the need for additional peer review. We hope that these developments will contribute to addiction science more actively adopting open science principles and help mitigate reproducibility concerns within the published literature.

Online Publication of Monuments

2020 ◽  
pp. 355-369
Author(s):  
Willeke Wendrich
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
3D Modeling ◽  
Online Publication ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
3D Scanning ◽  
Architectural Drawings ◽  
3D Gis ◽  
Unity 3D ◽  
Long Term Preservation

This chapter outlines the advantages of digital epigraphy in the context of the original monuments. It analyzes the perception of epigraphic publication of monuments, taking into account new technologies. 3DVR models can be created using architectural drawings and measurements (CAD and 3D modeling), 3D scanning, and Structure for Motion (SfM). These systems present different advantages and challenges, which are discussed. Current options for publication include VSim, 3D GIS, and Unity 3D platforms. The issues of peer review of publications and long-term preservation of data are addressed. The chapter concludes with a consideration of the issue of potentially misleading impressions given by 3DVR representations.

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.

scholarly journals An emergency care research course for healthcare career preparation

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen F. Miller ◽  
Rishub K. Das ◽  
Ciera D. Majors ◽  
Hadassah H. Paz ◽  
Ayana N. Robinson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
University Students ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Emergency Care ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Unmet Need ◽  
Independent Study ◽  
Course Evaluations ◽  
Biomedical Science ◽  
Research Experience ◽  
Care Research

Abstract Background University students have limited opportunities to gain healthcare clinical exposure within an academic curriculum. Furthermore, traditional pre-medical clinical experiences like shadowing lack active learning components. This may make it difficult for students to make an informed decision about pursuing biomedical professions. An academic university level research course with bedside experience provides students direct clinical participation in the healthcare setting. Methods Described is a research immersion course for senior university students (3rd to 5th year) interested in healthcare and reported study enrollment with final course evaluations. The setting was an adult, academic, urban, level 1 trauma center emergency department (ED) within a tertiary-care, 1000-bed, medical center. Our course, “Immersion in Emergency Care Research”, was offered as a university senior level class delivered consecutively over 16-weeks for students interested in healthcare careers. Faculty and staff from the Department of Emergency Medicine provided a classroom lecture program and extensive bedside, hands-on clinical research experience. Students enrolled patients in a survey study requiring informed consent, interviews, data abstraction and data entry. Additionally, they were required to write and present a mock emergency care research proposal inspired by their clinical experience. The course evaluations from students’ ordinal rankings and blinded text responses report possible career impact. Results Thirty-two students, completed the 16-week, 6–9 h per week, course from August to December in 1 of 4 years (2016 to 2019). Collectively, students enrolled 759 ED patients in the 4 survey studies and reported increased confidence in the clinical research process as each week progressed. Ranked evaluations were extremely positive, with many students describing how the course significantly impacted their career pathways and addressed an unmet need in biomedical education. Six students continued the research experience from the course through independent study using the survey data to develop 3 manuscripts for submission to peer-reviewed journals. Conclusions A bedside emergency care research course for students with pre-healthcare career aspirations can successfully provide early exposure to patients and emergency care, allow direct experience with clinical bedside research, research data collection, and may impact biomedical science career choices.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document