scholarly journals Peer Review #1 of "Evolution of a research field—a micro (RNA) example (v0.1)"

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
R Kulshreshtha
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Research Field ◽  
Micro Rna

scholarly journals Assessing Academic Careers: The Peer Review of Professorial Candidates

2022 ◽  
pp. 347-370
Author(s):  
Björn Hammarfelt
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Research Field ◽  
Academic Careers

AbstractThe reputation of an academic is dependent on their recognition among a wider community of peers, which means that the research field, rather than the institution, is the venue where careers are valued. This chapter looks at discipline specific practices for evaluating publications oeuvres in three fields; biomedicine, economics and history. The material consists of reports, written by independent referees, commissioned by Swedish universities when hiring for new professors. The approach is to study how ‘value’ is enacted with special attention to the kind of tools—judgements, indicators and metrics—that are used. The chapter concludes by relating the findings to a broader context of how academics are assessed, and the implications that such practices may have for knowledge production and careers are discussed.

scholarly journals The Importance of Rigorous Methods in a Growing Research Field: Five Practices for ASMR Researchers

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Hostler
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Research Field ◽  
Editorial Process ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Open Research ◽  
Code Sharing ◽  
Five Practices

A rigorous field of research is constructed on reproducible findings that allow researchers to confidently construct hypotheses and build theories from accessible literature. As a nascent area of research, the study of Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response (ASMR) has the opportunity to become such a field through the adoption of transparent and open research practices. In this paper I outline five such practices that can help achieve this aim: Preregistration, sharing data and code, sharing materials, posting preprints, and collaboration. Failing to adopt such principles could allow the proliferation of findings that are irreproducible and delay the progress of the field. Submitted to Meta-Psychology. Click here to follow the fully transparent editorial process of this submission. Participate in open peer review by commenting through hypothes.is directly on this preprint.

scholarly journals Like-for-like bibliometric substitutes for peer review: Advantages and limits of indicators calculated from the ep index

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 215-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alonso Rodríguez-Navarro ◽  
Ricardo Brito
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Research Area ◽  
Research Field ◽  
Global Distribution ◽  
Evaluation Procedure ◽  
Bibliometric Indicators ◽  
Research Excellence Framework ◽  
Research Areas ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Business And Management

Abstract The use of bibliometric indicators would simplify research assessments. The 2014 Research Excellence Framework (REF) is a peer review assessment of UK universities, whose results can be taken as benchmarks for bibliometric indicators. In this study, we use the REF results to investigate whether the ep index and a top percentile of most cited papers could substitute for peer review. The probability that a random university’s paper reaches a certain top percentile in the global distribution of papers is a power of the ep index, which can be calculated from the citation-based distribution of university’s papers in global top percentiles. Making use of the ep index in each university and research area, we calculated the ratios between the percentage of 4-star-rated outputs in REF and the percentages of papers in global top percentiles. Then, we fixed the assessment percentile so that the mean ratio between these two indicators across universities is 1.0. This method was applied to four units of assessment in REF: Chemistry, Economics and Econometrics joined to Business and Management Studies, and Physics. Some relevant deviations from the 1.0 ratio could be explained by the evaluation procedure in REF or by the characteristics of the research field; other deviations need specific studies by experts in the research area. These results indicate that in many research areas the substitution of a top percentile indicator for peer review is possible. However, this substitution cannot be made straightforwardly; more research is needed to establish the conditions of the bibliometric assessment.

scholarly journals ICECAE 2021 PEER-REVIEW DECLARATION

2021 ◽  
Vol 939 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Environmental Science ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Technical Committee ◽  
Research Field ◽  
Preliminary Review ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Professional Assessment ◽  
Professional Review

Abstract All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science have been peer-reviewed through processes administered by the Editor-in-Chief. A three-stage peer-review process was applied that includes initial screening, peer-review, and post-review phases. Reviews were conducted by international expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. Type of peer review: Triple-blind. There was a three-round reviewing process by the Scientific and Technical Committee. First-round is a preliminary review, plagiarism/similarity check (using Turnitin), quality, and topic. The papers, which did not pass the plagiarism/similarity check-up, were rejected immediately and the authors of the rejected papers received the rejection notice along with the similarity report. The second round of reviewing is a professional review, 2-3 experts of related research field gave the professional assessment and comment on scientific quality, relevance with the topics of the conference, originality, subject matter and style of presentation appropriate for IOP: EES, language, and impact of the paper. Consequently, the referees’ decided whether the paper accepted, rejected, conditionally accepted with minor revisions, conditionally accepted with major revisions, or rejected. The authors had the opportunity to revise their papers based on the reviewers’ recommendations. Third round reviewing is the final checking and format analysis of the revised papers. Passed submissions got the acceptance notification from the ICECAE 2021 Editor-in-Chief. ▪ Conference submission management system: https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=icecae2021 ▪ Number of submissions received: 249 ▪ Number of submissions sent for review: 215 ▪ Number of submissions accepted: 101 ▪ Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 41% ▪ Average number of reviews per paper: 2 ▪ Total number of reviewers involved: 14 ▪ Any additional info on review process: N/A ▪ Contact person for queries: Obid Tursunov, [email protected]

scholarly journals Using democracy to award research funding: an observational study

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrian Barnett
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Research Field ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Application Process ◽  
Convenience Sample ◽  
Inter Quartile Range ◽  
Alternative Funding ◽  
Quartile Range

Winning funding for health and medical research usually involves a lengthy application process. With success rates under 20% most of this time has no immediate value. An alternative funding system that could save time is using democracy to award the most deserving researchers based on votes from the research community. We aimed to test how such a system could work and examine some potential biases. We used an online survey with a convenience sample of Australian researchers. Researchers were asked to name the 10 scientists currently working in Australia that they thought most deserved funding for future research. For comparison we used recent winners from large national fellowship schemes that used traditional peer review. We received 1119 eligible votes from 169 voters. Voting took a median of 5 minutes (inter-quartile range 3 to 10 minutes). Extrapolating to a national voting scheme we estimate 599 working days of voting time (95% CI 490 to 728), compared with 827 working days for the current peer review system. The gender ratio in the votes was 45:55 (female:male) compared with 34:66 in recent fellowship winners, although this could be partly explained by Simpson’s paradox as the votes were not stratified by research field. Voters were biased towards their own institution, with an additional 1.6 votes per ballot (inter-quartile range 0.8 to 2.2) above the expected number. Voting would take less time than traditional peer review and would spread the workload over many more reviewers. The study provides some support for using democracy based on time saved and gender balance, but also showed evidence of friendly voting.

scholarly journals Evolution of a research field—a micro (RNA) example

PeerJ ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. e829 ◽  
Author(s):  
Máire-Caitlín Casey ◽  
Michael J. Kerin ◽  
James A. Brown ◽  
Karl J. Sweeney
Keyword(s):  
Research Field ◽  
Micro Rna

Peer review of a dental curriculum: how one school did it

1976 ◽  
Vol 40 (11) ◽  
pp. 761-762
Author(s):  
PK Morse ◽  
TR Dirksen
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Dental Curriculum

An empirical review of gambling expansion and gambling-related harm

2018 ◽  
Vol 64 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 295-306 ◽  
Author(s):  
Debi A. LaPlante ◽  
Heather M. Gray ◽  
Pat M. Williams ◽  
Sarah E. Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Empirical Data ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Expansion Method ◽  
Responsible Gambling ◽  
Review Literature ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Empirical Comparison ◽  
Related Harm

Abstract. Aims: To discuss and review the latest research related to gambling expansion. Method: We completed a literature review and empirical comparison of peer reviewed findings related to gambling expansion and subsequent gambling-related changes among the population. Results: Although gambling expansion is associated with changes in gambling and gambling-related problems, empirical studies suggest that these effects are mixed and the available literature is limited. For example, the peer review literature suggests that most post-expansion gambling outcomes (i. e., 22 of 34 possible expansion outcomes; 64.7 %) indicate no observable change or a decrease in gambling outcomes, and a minority (i. e., 12 of 34 possible expansion outcomes; 35.3 %) indicate an increase in gambling outcomes. Conclusions: Empirical data related to gambling expansion suggests that its effects are more complex than frequently considered; however, evidence-based intervention might help prepare jurisdictions to deal with potential consequences. Jurisdictions can develop and evaluate responsible gambling programs to try to mitigate the impacts of expanded gambling.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document