scholarly journals Applying organized skepticism to preprints

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Howard I. Browman
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Scholarly Work ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
And Mathematics ◽  
The Many

A preprint is a scholarly work posted by the author(s) in an openly accessible platform, usually before or in parallel with submission to a peer reviewed publication. While the sharing of manuscripts via preprint platforms has been common for many years in disciplines such as physics and mathematics, uptake in other disciplines had, until very recently, been low. The use of preprints is now growing exponentially. The reasons for this appear to be based on several purported advantages of preprints that have not been thoroughly assessed: low cost (but is it sustainable?); immediate publication; establishes precedence; improves quality of papers pre-submission; eliminates journal hierarchies and inequalities; identifies hypotheses not to test further (by making negative results available); a source of submissions for journals. I will take a skeptical view of these advantages and ask: do preprints really accomplish all of this? I will also present the many disadvantages – even dangers – of preprints as these have not been adequately scrutinized: bypasses peer review allowing documents containing unvetted claims to be made freely available; results in multiple competing versions (all of which are citable) of what – without careful and informed examination – appears to be the same content to persist in perpetuity (the preprint version of which is much more likely to contain errors and unvetted claims); presently, no one is responsible for updating the preprint server version, nor to link it to the final published version.

scholarly journals How to choose and become a reviewer for a scientific medical journal

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 151
Author(s):  
Paola Gnerre ◽  
Giorgio Vescovo ◽  
Paola Granata ◽  
Cecilia Politi ◽  
Andrea Fontanella ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Journal ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Modern Science ◽  
Scholarly Work ◽  
Publication Delay ◽  
Area Of Interest ◽  
Good Review

Peer review is the process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. The peer review of scientific manuscripts is a cornerstone of modern science and medicine. Some journals have difficulty in finding appropriate reviewers who are able to complete reviews on time avoiding publication delay. We discuss some of the main issues involved during the peer review process. The reviewer has a direct and important impact on the quality of a scientific medical Journal. Editors select reviewers on the basis of their expertise. Reviewers are more likely to accept to review a manuscript when it is relevant to their area of interest. They should respond to ethical principles, excluding any conflict of interest condition. The reviewer has to be professional, constructive, tactful, empathetic and respectful. Structured approaches, quality indicators and step-by-step process check list formats could be useful in obtaining a good review.

scholarly journals On the agreement between bibliometrics and peer review: Evidence from the Italian research assessment exercises

PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (11) ◽  
pp. e0242520
Author(s):  
Alberto Baccini ◽  
Lucio Barabesi ◽  
Giuseppe De Nicolao
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Dual System ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Testing Procedures ◽  
Research Areas ◽  
Random Samples ◽  
Individual Article ◽  
And Mathematics

This paper analyzes the concordance between bibliometrics and peer review. It draws evidence from the data of two experiments of the Italian governmental agency for research evaluation. The experiments were performed by the agency for validating the adoption in the Italian research assessment exercises of a dual system of evaluation, where some outputs were evaluated by bibliometrics and others by peer review. The two experiments were based on stratified random samples of journal articles. Each article was scored by bibliometrics and by peer review. The degree of concordance between the two evaluations is then computed. The correct setting of the experiments is defined by developing the design-based estimation of the Cohen’s kappa coefficient and some testing procedures for assessing the homogeneity of missing proportions between strata. The results of both experiments show that for each research areas of science, technology, engineering and mathematics the degree of agreement between bibliometrics and peer review is—at most—weak at an individual article level. Thus, the outcome of the experiments does not validate the use of the dual system of evaluation in the Italian research assessments. More in general, the very weak concordance indicates that metrics should not replace peer review at the level of individual article. Hence, the use of the dual system in a research assessment might worsen the quality of information compared to the adoption of peer review only or bibliometrics only.

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 1198 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
English Language ◽  
Materials Science ◽  
Associate Professor ◽  
Materials Science And Engineering ◽  
And Mathematics ◽  
Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Physical Materials ◽  
Scientific Standards

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: The examination was carried out by two experts. Since the number of all works is small - 15. All works were reviewed by two experts. When preparing for publications, we asked the authors to make two versions of articles in Russian and English language. Then the check was carried out first in Russian, then in English. The quality of the translation at the first stage of the check was checked by the Grammarly program - the site: https://www.grammarly.com/, at the second stage - it was assessed by a reviewer who has an excellent level of language English, Undrakh Mishigdorzhiin. • Conference submission management system: The conference was managed by the organizing committee Chairman V.I.Suslyaev, Ph.D., associate professor, TSU, Tomsk, a member of the organizing committee A.V. Nomoev., Doctor of Physics and Mathematics • Number of submissions received: 15 • Number of submissions sent for review: 15 • Number of submissions accepted: 15 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 100% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 2 • Any additional info on review process: The check was carried out by two experts. In the case of comments, errors, the need to add additional data to the peer-reviewed article, this was indicated to the authors of the article. They were corrected by the authors, re-checked by an expert for correcting comments, making changes and additions. • Contact person for queries: Name : Andrey Nomoev Affiliation: Institute of Physical Materials Science, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences Email : [email protected]

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.

Effect of Computerized Auditory Training on Speech Perception of Adults With Hearing Impairment

2013 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 91-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel Pizarek ◽  
Valeriy Shafiro ◽  
Patricia McCarthy
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Perception ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Experimental Designs ◽  
Auditory Training ◽  
Hearing Impairments ◽  
Communicative Disorders ◽  
And Training

Computerized auditory training (CAT) is a convenient, low-cost approach to improving communication of individuals with hearing loss or other communicative disorders. A number of CAT programs are being marketed to patients and audiologists. The present literature review is an examination of evidence for the effectiveness of CAT in improving speech perception in adults with hearing impairments. Six current CAT programs, used in 9 published studies, were reviewed. In all 9 studies, some benefit of CAT for speech perception was demonstrated. Although these results are encouraging, the overall quality of available evidence remains low, and many programs currently on the market have not yet been evaluated. Thus, caution is needed when selecting CAT programs for specific patients. It is hoped that future researchers will (a) examine a greater number of CAT programs using more rigorous experimental designs, (b) determine which program features and training regimens are most effective, and (c) indicate which patients may benefit from CAT the most.

Desain Media Pembelajaran Geometri SMP Menggunakan 3D Pageflip Professional Berbasis RME Terintegrasi STEM

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (01) ◽  
pp. 55-66
Author(s):  
Feri Tiona Pasaribu ◽  
Yelli Ramalisa
Keyword(s):  
High Schools ◽  
Junior High ◽  
Junior High Schools ◽  
Design Development ◽  
Student Questionnaire ◽  
Implementation Stages ◽  
The Media ◽  
And Mathematics ◽  
Geometry Learning

The focus of this research is to design geometry learning mediain junior high schools based on RME and integrated with Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) using 3D Pageflip Proffesional,and to explain quality of the learning media. In the process of design and development of this media used is the ADDIE development model which begins with the stages analysis, design, development, and  carried out an evaluation in each stages. Implementation stages will be continued in the following years research. This research resulted in a product in the form of geometry learning media in junior high schools especially eight grade according to purpose. Based on the validity test and practicality test the results obtained from the validation by material experts and media design experts were 4.09 namely 81.8% and 4.21 or 84.2%.Based on the criteria for the validity of the instrument, the criteria for "very valid" were obtained. And the practicality results, namely the results of teacher response questionnaire obtained an average of 4.26 or 85.19%, and the results of student questionnaire responses were 4.07 or 81.4%. Then based on the percentage criteria of practicality of the instrument, it is found that the criteria are very practical and the media can be implemented with minor revisions.

A Study of Medical Board Peer Reviews in Nevada

2010 ◽  
Vol 96 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-29
Author(s):  
Jerry C. Calvanese
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Board Members ◽  
Study Objective ◽  
Clark County ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Medical Examiners ◽  
Washoe County ◽  
Total Average Cost ◽  
Total Average

ABSTRACT Study Objective: The purpose of this study was to obtain data on various characteristics of peer reviews. These reviews were performed for the Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners (NSBME) to assess physician licensees' negligence and/or incompetence. It was hoped that this data could help identify and define certain characteristics of peer reviews. Methods: This study examined two years of data collected on peer reviews. The complaints were initially screened by a medical reviewer and/or a committee composed of Board members to assess the need for a peer review. Data was then collected from the peer reviews performed. The data included costs, specialty of the peer reviewer, location of the peer reviewer, and timeliness of the peer reviews. Results: During the two-year study, 102 peer reviews were evaluated. Sixty-nine percent of the peer-reviewed complaints originated from civil malpractice cases and 15% originated from complaints made by patients. Eighty percent of the complaint physicians were located in Clark County and 12% were located in Washoe County. Sixty-one percent of the physicians who performed the peer reviews were located in Washoe County and 24% were located in Clark County. Twelve percent of the complaint physicians were in practice in the state for 5 years or less, 40% from 6 to 10 years, 20% from 11 to 15 years, 16% from 16 to 20 years, and 13% were in practice 21 years or more. Forty-seven percent of the complaint physicians had three or less total complaints filed with the Board, 10% had four to six complaints, 17% had 7 to 10 complaints, and 26% had 11 or more complaints. The overall quality of peer reviews was judged to be good or excellent in 96% of the reviews. A finding of malpractice was found in 42% of the reviews ordered by the medical reviewer and in 15% ordered by the Investigative Committees. There was a finding of malpractice in 38% of the overall total of peer reviews. The total average cost of a peer review was $791. In 47% of the peer reviews requested, materials were sent from the Board to the peer reviewer within 60 days of the original request and 33% took more than 120 days for the request to be sent. In 48% of the reviews, the total time for the peer review to be performed by the peer reviewer was less than 60 days. Twenty seven percent of the peer reviews took more than 120 days to be returned. Conclusion: Further data is needed to draw meaningful conclusions from certain peer review characteristics reported in this study. However, useful data was obtained regarding timeliness in sending out peer review materials, total times for the peer reviews, and costs.

The system of indicators of the quality of the carbon-carbon composite materials and technologies of their production

2018 ◽  
pp. 127-132
Author(s):  
T. N. Antipova ◽  
D. S. Shiroyan
Keyword(s):  
Composite Material ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Carbon Matrix ◽  
Carbon Composite ◽  
Optimal Number ◽  
Laboratory Equipment ◽  
Carbon Composite Material ◽  
Carbon Composite Materials

The system of indicators of quality of carbon-carbon composite material and technological operations of its production is proved in the work. As a result of the experimental studies, with respect to the existing laboratory equipment, the optimal number of cycles of saturation of the reinforcing frame with a carbon matrix is determined. It was found that to obtain a carbon-carbon composite material with a low cost and the required quality indicators, it is necessary to introduce additional parameters of the pitch melt at the impregnation stage.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document