How efficient are Early Career Scientists in peer-review activities?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathieu Casado ◽  
Gwenaëlle Gremion ◽  
Kelsey Aho ◽  
Jilda Caccavo ◽  
Nicolas Champollion ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
Science And Policy ◽  
Working Groups ◽  
Closing The Gap

<p>In our collective endeavour towards global sustainability, there is now a broad appreciation that producing scientifically robust knowledge requires new forms of engagement between scientists, stakeholders and society. But what is the role of Early Career Scientists (ECS) in these processes that are closing the gap between science and policy? Because opportunities to interact with more experienced peers through science refereeing are scarce, the role of ECS in the peer-review process remains minor despite ECS possessing strong academic credentials. Such engagement in the peer-review process represents a valuable opportunity for ECS and the scientific community as a whole. This opportunity provides a robust platform for ECS to understand the overall review process and editorial activities related to high-credibility publications such as those conducted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). During May/November 2018, 174 ECS on behalf of the Association of Polar Early Career Scientists (APECS) reviewed the first and second-order drafts of the IPCC “Special Report on Ocean and Cryosphere and in a Changing Climate (SROCC)”. Here, we present the methodology, results, and lessons learned from these group reviews. Altogether, data from participant surveys on their experience and their comments catalog illustrate ECS as competent reviewers, comparable to more experienced researchers. The diverse disciplines and geographic perspectives, fostered through APECS and its partners, are currently being mobilized in the First Order Draft of the Working Groups I and II of the Assessment Report 6 of the IPCC, and will continue during the second round of reviews of these reports in early 2020. Information gathered during these ongoing reviews will add to the findings obtained during the review of the SROCC.</p>

scholarly journals The benefits to climate science of including Early Career Scientists as reviewers

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathieu Casado ◽  
Gwenaëlle Gremion ◽  
Paul Rosenbaum ◽  
Jilda Alicia Caccavo ◽  
Kelsey Aho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Climate Science ◽  
Work Force ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Similar Proportion ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
Peer Reviewers

Abstract. Early Career Scientists (ECS) are a large part of the work force in science. While they produce new scientific knowledge that they share in publications, they are rarely invited to participate in the peer-review process. Barriers to the participation of ECS as peer-reviewers include, among others, their lack of visibility to editors, inexperience in the review process and lack of confidence in their scientific knowledge. Participation of ECS in group reviews, e.g. for assessment reports, provides an opportunity for ECS to advance their skill set and to contribute to policy relevant products. Here, we present the outcomes of a group peer-review of the first order draft of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report on Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (IPCC SROCC). Overall, PhD students spent more time on the review than those further advanced in their careers, and provided a similar proportion of substantive comments. After the review, participants reported feeling more confident about their skills, and 86 % were interested in reviewing individually. By soliciting and including ECS in the peer-review process, the scientific community would not only reduce the burden carried by more established scientists, but permit their successors to develop important professional skills relevant to advancing climate science and influencing policy.

scholarly journals The benefits to climate science of including early-career scientists as reviewers

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-97
Author(s):  
Mathieu Casado ◽  
Gwenaëlle Gremion ◽  
Paul Rosenbaum ◽  
Jilda Alicia Caccavo ◽  
Kelsey Aho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Climate Science ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Similar Proportion ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
First Order ◽  
Peer Reviewers

Abstract. Early-career scientists (ECSs) are a large part of the workforce in science. While they produce new scientific knowledge that they share in publications, they are rarely invited to participate in the peer-review process. Barriers to the participation of ECSs as peer reviewers include, among other things, their lack of visibility to editors, inexperience in the review process and lack of confidence in their scientific knowledge. Participation of ECSs in group reviews, e.g. for regional or global assessment reports, provides an opportunity for ECSs to advance their skill set and to contribute to policy-relevant products. Here, we present the outcomes of a group peer review of the First Order Draft of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC). Overall, PhD students spent more time on the review than those further advanced in their careers and provided a similar proportion of substantive comments. After the review, participants reported feeling more confident in their skills, and 86 % were interested in reviewing individually. By soliciting and including ECSs in the peer-review process, the scientific community would not only reduce the burden carried by more established scientists but also permit their successors to develop important professional skills relevant to advancing climate science and influencing policy.

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.

scholarly journals An Evaluation of the Accuracy of Peer to Peer Surgical Teaching and the Role of the Peer Review Process

Pharmacy ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-201
Author(s):  
Sheila Oh ◽  
Noel Lynch ◽  
Nora McCarthy ◽  
Tulin Cil ◽  
Elaine Lehane ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Peer To Peer ◽  
Surgical Teaching

scholarly journals Accuracy in detecting inadequate research reporting by early career peer reviewers using an online CONSORT-based peer-review tool (COBPeer) versus the usual peer-review process: a cross-sectional diagnostic study

BMC Medicine ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Chauvin ◽  
Philippe Ravaud ◽  
David Moher ◽  
David Schriger ◽  
Sally Hopewell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Diagnostic Study ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Link Type ◽  
The Mean

Abstract Background The peer review process has been questioned as it may fail to allow the publication of high-quality articles. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy in identifying inadequate reporting in RCT reports by early career researchers (ECRs) using an online CONSORT-based peer-review tool (COBPeer) versus the usual peer-review process. Methods We performed a cross-sectional diagnostic study of 119 manuscripts, from BMC series medical journals, BMJ, BMJ Open, and Annals of Emergency Medicine reporting the results of two-arm parallel-group RCTs. One hundred and nineteen ECRs who had never reviewed an RCT manuscript were recruited from December 2017 to January 2018. Each ECR assessed one manuscript. To assess accuracy in identifying inadequate reporting, we used two tests: (1) ECRs assessing a manuscript using the COBPeer tool (after completing an online training module) and (2) the usual peer-review process. The reference standard was the assessment of the manuscript by two systematic reviewers. Inadequate reporting was defined as incomplete reporting or a switch in primary outcome and considered nine domains: the eight most important CONSORT domains and a switch in primary outcome(s). The primary outcome was the mean number of domains accurately classified (scale from 0 to 9). Results The mean (SD) number of domains (0 to 9) accurately classified per manuscript was 6.39 (1.49) for ECRs using COBPeer versus 5.03 (1.84) for the journal’s usual peer-review process, with a mean difference [95% CI] of 1.36 [0.88–1.84] (p < 0.001). Concerning secondary outcomes, the sensitivity of ECRs using COBPeer versus the usual peer-review process in detecting incompletely reported CONSORT items was 86% [95% CI 82–89] versus 20% [16–24] and in identifying a switch in primary outcome 61% [44–77] versus 11% [3–26]. The specificity of ECRs using COBPeer versus the usual process to detect incompletely reported CONSORT domains was 61% [57–65] versus 77% [74–81] and to identify a switch in primary outcome 77% [67–86] versus 98% [92–100]. Conclusions Trained ECRs using the COBPeer tool were more likely to detect inadequate reporting in RCTs than the usual peer review processes used by journals. Implementing a two-step peer-review process could help improve the quality of reporting. Trial registration Clinical.Trials.govNCT03119376 (Registered April, 18, 2017).

scholarly journals Perspectives for early-career researchers on plagiarism and scientific integrity

FACETS ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-25
Author(s):  
Robert G. Young ◽  
T. Fatima Mitterboeck
Keyword(s):  
Graduate Students ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Investigation ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Scientific Integrity ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Early Career Researchers

Lapses in scientific integrity, such as plagiarism, persist in the scientific realm. To be successful and contributory, early-career researchers (ECRs), including graduate students, need to be able to effectively navigate the literature, peer-review process, and scientific research with integrity. Here we discuss different aspects of scientific integrity related to ECRs. Our discussion centres on the concepts of plagiarism and intellectual property, predatory journals, aspects of peer review, transparency in publishing, and false advanced accreditations. Negative elements within these topics may be especially damaging to ECRs, who may be less familiar with the research landscape. We highlight the need for ECRs to approach scientific investigation cautiously and thoughtfully to promote integrity through critical thinking.

scholarly journals Expression of Concern: Hamza et al. A Potential Role of Apelin-13 against Hepatic Injury and Metabolic Disorders in Preeclampsia Induced by L-NAME. Coatings 2021, 11, 391

Coatings ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. 1117
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Guest Editor ◽  
Metabolic Disorders ◽  
Hepatic Injury ◽  
Potential Role ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Special Issue

Following acceptance of the Special Issue article by the Guest Editor, El-Sayed Abd El-Aziz, concerns were raised regarding the integrity of the peer review process [...]

scholarly journals How to publish your manuscript successfully (with Wiley)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matteo Cavalleri
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Training Module ◽  
Early Career Researchers

Part of the training module on publishing with the Council of Australian University Librarians, this 1h webinar provides tips to Early Career Researchers on how to write and accompany an article through the peer-review process. Not specific to Wiley journals, but why go elsewhere, really?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document