scholarly journals #Pay4Reviews: Academic publishers should pay scientists for peer-review

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodolfo Jaffé
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Scientific Papers ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
The Right

The exploitation of scientists by traditional academic publishers is widespread, as they monopolize the right to distribute scientific papers, strip authors of their own article’s copyrights, and charge them if they wish to read papers from their peers. It is then up to scientists to free themselves (and their papers) from the tyranny of academic publishers by refusing to perform free peer-reviews for them and by publishing open-access when possible. Starved of peer-reviewers, academic publishers would have nothing to publish, while subscription fees are doomed to disappear in an age of open-science. This system would also create incentives to perform peer-review: #Pay4Reviews

scholarly journals #Pay4Reviews: Academic publishers should pay scientists for peer-review

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodolfo Jaffé
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Scientific Papers ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
The Right

The exploitation of scientists by traditional academic publishers is widespread, as they monopolize the right to distribute scientific papers, strip authors of their own article’s copyrights, and charge them if they wish to read papers from their peers. It is then up to scientists to free themselves (and their papers) from the tyranny of academic publishers by refusing to perform free peer-reviews for them and by publishing open-access when possible. Starved of peer-reviewers, academic publishers would have nothing to publish, while subscription fees are doomed to disappear in an age of open-science. This system would also create incentives to perform peer-review: #Pay4Reviews

scholarly journals Influence of Peer Review on College ESL Writers

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (9) ◽  
pp. 121
Author(s):  
Irda Haryani Tahir
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Publishing House ◽  
Written Feedback ◽  
Writing Teachers ◽  
Writing Class ◽  
International Publishing ◽  
The Right ◽  
Giving Feedback ◽  
Open Access Article

Both students and teachers are environmentally challenged. Teachers are not well-heeled to do everything including giving feedback to students. Writing is a challenging area in teaching ESL. It was said that giving written feedback to students’ writing is the most time consuming and challenging job (Ferris, 2007). This paper reports on a study designed to investigate and identify the benefits and the challenges of peer review, to investigate the influence of content and form based feedback to students writing. Teachers should be more aware of the right techniques to use in a writing class to produce all-rounder future communities.Keywords: Environmentally challenged, future communities, influence, peer evaluation.eISSN 2398-4295 © 2018. The Authors. Published for AMER ABRA cE-Bs by e-International Publishing House, Ltd., UK. This is an open-access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer–review under responsibility of AMER (Association of Malaysian Environment-Behaviour Researchers), ABRA (Association of Behavioural Researchers on Asians) and cE-Bs (Centre for Environment-Behaviour Studies), Faculty of Architecture, Planning & Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia.

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 Open Science aus Perspektive der Technikfolgenabschätzung

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 11-17
Author(s):  
Ulrich Riehm ◽  
Michael Nentwich
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Öffentliche Kommunikation

Dieser Beitrag nähert sich dem Thema Open Science aus der Perspektive der konzeptionellen Vorbereitung einer umfassenden Technikfolgenabschätzungsstudie. Es werden vier Dimensionen des Konzepts der Offenheit von Wissenschaft unterschieden: freier Zugang, öffentliche Kommunikation, offene Kooperation und die Überwindung gesellschaftlicher Subsysteme. Es wird des Weiteren eine sinnvolle Abgrenzung des Untersuchungsgegenstandes Open Science vorgeschlagen, die bei einer TA‑Studie berücksichtigt werden müsste. Nach einer kurzen Darstellung des Status Quo für drei typische Konkretisierungen von Open Science (Open Access, Open-Peer-Review, Wissenschaftsnetzwerke) werden vier Szenarien der zukünftigen Entwicklung von Open Science zur Diskussion gestellt.

scholarly journals Rechtsfragen bei Open Science - Ein Leitfaden

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Till Kreutzer ◽  
Henning Lahmann ◽  
Ina Kaulen
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Open Source ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Open Science

Die Digitalisierung ermöglicht eine offene Wissenschaft (Open Science). Diese hat viele Aspekte, insbesondere den freien Zugang zu wissenschaftlichen Veröffentlichungen und Materialien (Open Access), transparente Begutachtungsverfahren (Open Peer Review) oder quelloffene Technologien (Open Source). Das Programm Hamburg Open Science (Laufzeit 2018–2020) unterstützt unter anderem den Kulturwandel in der Wissenschaft. In diesem Kontext entstand der nun vorliegende Leitfaden, der das rechtliche Umfeld greifbar machen soll. Der Leitfaden erarbeitet die betroffenen Rechtsgebiete zunächst systematisch. Im zweiten Teil werden rechtliche Fragen zu Open Science beantwortet, die direkt aus den Universitäten und Bibliotheken kommen. So gelingt eine praxisnahe Aufbereitung und Vermittlung. Autoren des Leitfadens sind Dr. Till Kreutzer, Partner der Kanzlei iRights.Law, und deren wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter Henning Lahmann. Die vorliegende zweite, vollständig überarbeitete und erweiterte Auflage ist unter Mitarbeit von Dr. Ina Kaulen, Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg Carl von Ossietzky, entstanden. Nach seiner ersten Veröffentlichung im Jahr 2019 liegt der Band hiermit nun in einer 2., überarbeiteten und erweiterten Auflage vor.

scholarly journals Mapping the Current Research Agenda on Scholarly Publishing: Scopus-Indexed Reviews

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 4-10
Author(s):  
Elena Tikhonova ◽  
Lilia Raitskaya
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Publishing Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Scholarly Publishing ◽  
Science System ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Scholarly Publications ◽  
Editorial Review ◽  
The Impact

Nearly ten years ago, scholarly publishing came to the fore in research on scientific communication spurred by the evolving Open Science system, the reinvention of peer reviews, and new attitudes to scholarly publications in the ranking-based academic environment. Here, the JLE editors revisit the field of scholarly publishing and identify the most popular areas where potential JLE authors might have difficulty. In this editorial, Scopus-indexed reviews are analysed to map the prevailing trends. The editorial review shows that the trends include open access, peer review transparency, the changing role of libraries in scholarly publishing, CrossRef’s initiatives, outsourcing and skills lacking in publishing, the impact of universities’ prescribed lists for publishing research, open-access monographs, and the role of commercial publishers.

scholarly journals Science in Crisis. Is Open Science the Solution?

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rima-Maria Rahal ◽  
Johanna Havemann
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Research Community ◽  
Technological Changes

Since Open Science has become a recurring buzzword for recent meta-scientific developments, this article summarizes what these developments entail. What are the reasons for discussions about Open Access, Open Data and Open Peer Review? Which technological changes can we expect and which impact will they have on society and the research community?

scholarly journals Peer reviewing – a responsibility and a power of the university?

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bård Smedsrød ◽  
Eirik Reierth ◽  
Lars Moksness ◽  
Leif Longva
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Academic Freedom ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Publishing Houses ◽  
Commercial Publishing ◽  
The University ◽  
The Eu

Watch the VIDEO of the presentation.Journal coordinated peer reviewing, a hallmark of scholarly publishing, is also a pivotal part of other central academic processes, such as evaluation of research grant applications, and ranking of applicants for faculty/research positions. Hence, journal coordinated peer reviewing may be viewed as “the mother of academic peer reviewing”. On this background, it is astonishing that universities and other public R&D institutions take only a very limited interest in the management and policy shaping of this cornerstone of scholarly publishing.We suggest that the universities need to become more aware of the pivotal role of the peer reviewing jobs carried out by their professors and researchers. The peer reviewing should be viewed as a partial, in kind payment from the institutions involved to the journal publishers. The advantages of this are manifold: i) negotiating power that may lead to easier and quicker implementation of open access publishing and/or ii) reducing costs, in particular the unjustifiably high subscription and licensing rates set by the big commercial publishing houses; iii) better control of how scientific staff use their time for the good of the university; iv) managing a unified policy shaping of peer reviewing, reducing fraud and flaws. This will in turn increase quality of the research produced by the universities.    The EU has recently announced their goal of making all European scientific articles freely accessible by 2020. This announcement was made unanimously by the EU ministers responsible for research and innovation. The ministers have not announced what means to use in achieving their announced goal. We suggest a united approach whereby taking control of the peer review job could be an interesting road to follow. Such a unified international action among universities and grant agencies would be very beneficial in order to make the changes needed to establish peer reviewing as a truly academically based responsibility. The increasing international agreements and actions to implement open access publishing are indications that such changes are possible. By standing together universities will be able to break the economic grip that the big commercial publishing houses have on academic research.Some may argue that it is the right of each individual scientist to decide on the extent and for what journal to perform peer reviewing. However, if an employer for some reason limits the amount of time used to do peer reviewing for certain commercial publishing houses, it would not interfere with the academic freedom to do research and to choose freely where and how to publish. After all, work contracts include instructions on how to perform a certain amount of teaching, administration and research. The option of directing where to do or not to do peer review should not be very controversial.By taking control of and organizing peer reviewing universities would obtain a means to regain the academic freedom that was lost when commercial enterprises took over the society driven journals, introducing heavy paywalls. And it may facilitate a development towards an open science regime.

scholarly journals Open Peer Review in Scientific Publishing: A Web Mining Study of PeerJ Authors and Reviewers

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 60-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peiling Wang ◽  
Sukjin You ◽  
Rath Manasa ◽  
Dietmar Wolfram
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Web Mining ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Open Access Journal ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Current Characteristics ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
Analytical Tools

AbstractPurposeTo understand how authors and reviewers are accepting and embracing Open Peer Review (OPR), one of the newest innovations in the Open Science movement.Design/methodology/approachThis research collected and analyzed data from the Open Access journal PeerJ over its first three years (2013–2016). Web data were scraped, cleaned, and structured using several Web tools and programs. The structured data were imported into a relational database. Data analyses were conducted using analytical tools as well as programs developed by the researchers.FindingsPeerJ, which supports optional OPR, has a broad international representation of authors and referees. Approximately 73.89% of articles provide full review histories. Of the articles with published review histories, 17.61% had identities of all reviewers and 52.57% had at least one signed reviewer. In total, 43.23% of all reviews were signed. The observed proportions of signed reviews have been relatively stable over the period since the Journal’s inception.Research limitationsThis research is constrained by the availability of the peer review history data. Some peer reviews were not available when the authors opted out of publishing their review histories. The anonymity of reviewers made it impossible to give an accurate count of reviewers who contributed to the review process.Practical implicationsThese findings shed light on the current characteristics of OPR. Given the policy that authors are encouraged to make their articles’ review history public and referees are encouraged to sign their review reports, the three years of PeerJ review data demonstrate that there is still some reluctance by authors to make their reviews public and by reviewers to identify themselves.Originality/valueThis is the first study to closely examine PeerJ as an example of an OPR model journal. As Open Science moves further towards open research, OPR is a final and critical component. Research in this area must identify the best policies and paths towards a transparent and open peer review process for scientific communication.

scholarly journals The role and significance of peer-review in Russian and foreign library and information science journals: a comparative analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
V.  N. Gureyev ◽  
N.  A. Mazov
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Review System ◽  
Academic Journals ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Peer Reviewers

The paper summarizes experience of the authors as peer-reviewers of more than 100 manuscripts in twelve Russian and foreign academic journals on Library and Information Science in the last seven years. Prepared peer-reviews were used for making a list of the most usual critical and special comments for each manuscript that were subsequently structured for the conducted analyzes. Typical issues accompanying the peer-review process are shown. Significant differences between the results of peer-review in Russian and foreign journals are detected: although the initial quality of newly submitted manuscripts is approximately equal, the final published versions in foreign journals addressed all critical and the majority of minor reviewers’ comments, while in Russian journals more than one third of final versions were published with critical gaps. We conclude about low interest in high quality peer reviews among both authors and editors-in-chief in Russian journals. Despite the limitations of the samples, the obtained findings can be useful when evaluating the current peer-review system in Russian academic journals on Library and Information Science.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document