Scientific peer-review - a time for renovation?
Keywords:
Anonymity, Publishing decision, Resubmission, Retraction, Review quality
Abstract
Ability of the peer review system to deliver what is expected from it is increasingly challenged. Peerage of Science (PoS) is a web-based service, offering new innovations to solve the problems in the current peer-review processes. This keynote talk describes how PoS pursues to keep the traditions of scientific peer-reviewing that are worth retaining and to fix the parts that are broken.References
Aarssen, L.W., Tregenza T., Budden A.E., Lortie C.J., Koricheva J. & Leimu R. 2008. Bang for Your Buck: Rejection Rates and Impact Factors in Ecological Journals. The Open Ecology Journal 1: 14-19.
Jubb M. 2015. Scholarly Communication and Peer Review The Current Landscape and Future Trends. Report Commissioned by the Wellcome Trust. http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@policy_communications/documents/web_document/wtp059003.pdf
Lee C.J., Sugimoto C.R., Zhang G. & Cronin, B. 2013. Bias in peer review. Journal of The American Society for Information Science and Technology 64: 2-17.
Pautasso M & Schäfer H. 2010. Peer review delay and selectivity in ecology journals. Scientometrics 84: 307-315
Patterson M.S. & Harris S. 2009. The relationship between reviewers’ quality-scores and number of citations for papers published in the journal Physics in Medicine and Biology from 2003–2005. Scientometrics 80:343-351.
Resnik D., Gutierrez-Ford C. & Peddada, S. 2008. Perceptions of Ethical Problems with Scientific Journal Peer Review: An Exploratory Study. Science and Engineering Ethics 14: 305-310.
Retraction Watch 2014. “Potentially groundbreaking,” “highly provocative:” Nature STAP stem cell peer reviews published. Retraction Watch blog article. http://retractionwatch.com/2014/09/11/potentially-groundbreaking-highly-provocative-nature-stap-cell-peer-reviews-published/
Retraction Watch 2015. 64 more papers retracted for fake reviews, this time from Springer journals. Retraction Watch blog article. http://retractionwatch.com/2015/08/17/64-more-papers-retracted-for-fake-reviews-this-time-from-springer-journals/
Thomson Reuters 2012. Global Publishing: Changes in submission trends and the impact on scholarly publishers. White paper published online by Thomson Reuters. http://scholarone.com/media/pdf/GlobalPublishing_WP.pdf
Vergano D. 2013. Glowing reviews on 'arseniclife' spurred NASA's embrace. Column in USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/vergano/2013/02/01/arseniclife-peer-reviews-nasa/1883327/
Ware M. 2011. Peer review: recent experience and future directions. New Review of Information Networking. 16: 23-53
Jubb M. 2015. Scholarly Communication and Peer Review The Current Landscape and Future Trends. Report Commissioned by the Wellcome Trust. http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@policy_communications/documents/web_document/wtp059003.pdf
Lee C.J., Sugimoto C.R., Zhang G. & Cronin, B. 2013. Bias in peer review. Journal of The American Society for Information Science and Technology 64: 2-17.
Pautasso M & Schäfer H. 2010. Peer review delay and selectivity in ecology journals. Scientometrics 84: 307-315
Patterson M.S. & Harris S. 2009. The relationship between reviewers’ quality-scores and number of citations for papers published in the journal Physics in Medicine and Biology from 2003–2005. Scientometrics 80:343-351.
Resnik D., Gutierrez-Ford C. & Peddada, S. 2008. Perceptions of Ethical Problems with Scientific Journal Peer Review: An Exploratory Study. Science and Engineering Ethics 14: 305-310.
Retraction Watch 2014. “Potentially groundbreaking,” “highly provocative:” Nature STAP stem cell peer reviews published. Retraction Watch blog article. http://retractionwatch.com/2014/09/11/potentially-groundbreaking-highly-provocative-nature-stap-cell-peer-reviews-published/
Retraction Watch 2015. 64 more papers retracted for fake reviews, this time from Springer journals. Retraction Watch blog article. http://retractionwatch.com/2015/08/17/64-more-papers-retracted-for-fake-reviews-this-time-from-springer-journals/
Thomson Reuters 2012. Global Publishing: Changes in submission trends and the impact on scholarly publishers. White paper published online by Thomson Reuters. http://scholarone.com/media/pdf/GlobalPublishing_WP.pdf
Vergano D. 2013. Glowing reviews on 'arseniclife' spurred NASA's embrace. Column in USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/vergano/2013/02/01/arseniclife-peer-reviews-nasa/1883327/
Ware M. 2011. Peer review: recent experience and future directions. New Review of Information Networking. 16: 23-53
Published
2015-10-14
Issue
Section
Keynote
Copyright (c) 2015 Mikko Mönkkönen, Janne-Tuomas Seppänen, Janne Kotiaho
Authors who publish with this proceedings volume agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the Conference organisers right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY 4.0 that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this proceedings volume.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the proceeding's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this proceedings volume.
