Peer Review Declaration

XIX International Scientific and Practical Conference “ENERGY AND RESOURCE-SAVING - XXI century” (ERS 2021) The conference was held in the remote format on November 10-12, 2021 on the basis of FSBEI HEI “ORLOV STATE UNIVERSITY named after I.S. Turgenev”. • Type of peer review: one-way blind, double-blind, open review, transparent review,/other All articles submitted for the conference underwent two levels of one-sided blind peer review. The first level of one-way blind review was conducted by the section leaders in the following form: List of A form of one-way blind peer review of the first level, Logos are available in this pdf.

Intention based Clustering of Relevant Reviews using Content Similarity

The proposed work deals with finding related reviews posted on various online Forums. Conventional methods for matching related documents compute the content similarity over the entire review instead of partitioning into segments revealing different intentions. In this work, intention-based similarity clustering is introduced to find the relatedness of two documents. This method forms the document clusters based on the similarity of the segments with similar intentions. The segmentation points are identified using a number of text features which can express when the segmentation should be done. Finally, the document clusters are formed by grouping the segments with similar intentions in same cluster and then the similarities among the segments with the same intention are computed. The proposed model is trained on TripAdvisor and Yelp Open Review datasets to evaluate the performance of the model, and the evaluation results show that the model produces more precise results in mining documents related to the user’s interest.

Unleashing the potential of preprints

See RECORDING. The rise of preprints in the biomedical sciences has created new opportunities to transform how research is communicated and assessed. As researchers become more accustomed to posting their findings online as soon as they are ready to be shared, the delays that occur during peer review at journals become harder to countenance. If a finding is immediately made available as a preprint, why wait months for the journal version to be published? There is clearly still a need for the quality control that peer review provides, but it does not make sense to continue with the opaque systems that were designed for an age when findings were kept secret until they were published in a journal. In this talk I will discuss the ways in which eLife is working towards a new model to support the open review of preprints, while also developing technology that supports other experiments in this space.

Open Review and Open Science in The Social Sciences and Humanities: A "Double Blind" Gold Standard

Openings of research results, datasets, and scientific practices in general are currently being implemented across fields. Especially strongly data-driven areas like medicine are discussing publishing transparency too – in a context where open review formats now dominate. Social sciences and humanities (SSH), in turn, still rely on closed systems. In this study, we draw on 12 semi-structured interviews with chief editors of leading journals in SSH fields to better understand the transparencies of such review processes. We find that, within SSH, ‘double blind’ peer review represents a gold standard that credible journals follow by default. However, the actual review processes of these journals are multi-stage and largely open with the authors’ names standardly visible to decision-making peers, with ‘double blind’ principles forming but part of it. We recommend journals to communicate the transparencies of their review in more detail, also and especially if they are ‘double blind’.

Open data, open review and open dialogue in making social sciences plausible

A growing awareness of the lack of reproducibility has undermined society’s trust and esteem in social sciences. In some cases, well-known results have been fabricated or the underlying data have turned out to have weak technical foundations.

Open Review and Open Science in the Social Sciences and Humanities: A "Double Blind" Gold Standard

Openings of research results, datasets, and scientific practices in general are currently being implemented across fields. Especially strongly data-driven areas like medicine are discussing publishing transparency too – in a context where open review formats now dominate. Social sciences and humanities (SSH), in turn, still rely on closed systems. In this study, we draw on 12 semi-structured interviews with chief editors of leading journals in SSH fields to better understand the transparencies of such review processes. We find that, within SSH, ‘double blind’ peer review represents a gold standard that credible journals follow by default. However, the actual review processes of these journals are multi-stage and largely open with the authors’ names standardly visible to decision-making peers, with ‘double blind’ principles forming but part of it. We recommend journals to communicate the transparencies of their review in more detail, also and especially if they are ‘double blind’.

Attitudes toward open peer review among stakeholders of a scholar-led journal in Brazil

Scholarly journals should consider the attitudes of their communities before adopting any of the seven traits of open peer review. Unfortunately, surveys from the Global North might not apply to the Global South, where double-blind peer review is commonplace even among natural sciences and medicine journals. This paper reports the findings of a survey on attitudes toward open peer review among four stakeholder groups of a scholar-led medical journal in Brazil: society members, journal readers, authors, and reviewers. Compared to a previous survey, which mostly recruited natural sciences researchers from Europe, this survey found similar support for open peer review in general and for most of its traits. One important exception was open identities, which were considered detrimental by most participants, even more in this survey than in the previous one. Interestingly, participants were more dismissive of open identities as a whole than of statements about its specific consequences. Because preprints are increasingly popular but incompatible with double-blind review, future research should examine the effects of transitioning from double-blind to open identities, especially on gender bias. Meanwhile, scholarly journals with double-blind review might prefer to begin by adopting other traits of open review or to make open identities optional at first.

What matters to patients: Parental and caregiver opinions on International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurements overall health outcomes for children in Singapore

Background: Health in children is multifaceted. More than just the absence of disease, good child health also comprises psychological well-being and social functioning. In paediatrics, optimal health care is a partnership between caregivers and doctors. Value-based medicine strengthens this partnership. Monitoring and tracking these patient-reported outcomes using validated measurement tools in a life-course manner helps us to understand and ultimately improve overall child health better. Objectives: This study aimed to assess parental opinions in Singapore on recommended outcome measures and approach recommended by the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurements (ICHOM) Overall Pediatric Health (OPH) working group. Methods: An international working group comprising 25 experts in paediatric health was formed under the auspices of ICHOM. Through a series of literature reviews, patient focus groups and open review periods, a set of health outcomes and case-mix variables was proposed, with the aim of improving paediatric care globally. Parents and caregivers were invited to participate in this survey from around the world, including from the USA, UK, Colombia and Singapore. The survey covered domains that were included in the ICHOM OPH Standard Set. An international anonymised online patient validation survey tool online survey was initiated to evaluate caregiver opinions of these proposed ICHOM OPH outcomes, and this was conducted from November 2019 to January 2020. Singapore participated in this caregiver survey on overall paediatric health outcomes. Of the 270 respondents in this ICHOM OPH consumer international open review online survey, 160 were from Singapore. We report here a cross-sectional study with data from the Singapore group of respondents. Results: Of the 160 responses from Singapore, 73.8% had no more than two children, and 38.8% of caregivers had children between 0 and 5 years old. In general, 76.9% of caregivers were satisfied with the health care that they received, and 60% of caregivers had had between one and four health-care appointments in the last 12 months. Assessment was done on a scale of 1 to 9, with importance defined as a score of ⩾7. All outcome measures were ranked to be important, with an overall mean score of 7.9 on a scale ranging from 1 to 9. Development was assessed as being the most important ( M=8.34±0.93), and sexual health was assessed as being the least important ( M=7.09±1.71). Almost all respondents felt that the list of ICHOM-recommended outcomes proposed was complete. Parents and caregivers in Singapore placed development and mental health as the most important across all age groups surveyed. They felt that the framework provided by the ICHOM OPH working group was adequate in addressing their concerns. Most parents and caregivers were satisfied with the health care they had received. Conclusion: Child health is a continuum that requires longitudinal attention from both the family and the clinician, and should take a life-course approach, utilising validated measurement tools to monitor and track key parameters. Parents and caregivers in Singapore place high importance on their child’s development and mental functioning. While there has been much community effort on development and mental functioning in children, more can be done in these two areas and to increase the emphasis and awareness on sex education both within the home and in schools. A framework for evaluating children during follow-up clinic visits would be helpful in continuing longitudinal care of children to provide holistic care and to improve adult health in the long term, guided by the framework set down by the ICHOM OPH standard set. As we recognise and embrace the importance not just of health care but the health of the next generation, we will need to use validated measurement tools to monitor and track these importance parameters in the journey of our children, so that we can identify and improve these outcomes in a timely manner.