The peer review drugs don’t work

Posted in Research on May 29th, 2015 by steve

UK“It is paradoxical and ironic that peer review, a process at the heart of science, is based on faith not evidence. There is evidence on peer review, but few scientists and scientific editors seem to know of it – and what it shows is that the process has little if any benefit and lots of flaws …” (more)

[Richard Smith, Times Higher Education, 28 May]

Tags: ,

Slay peer review ‘sacred cow’, says former BMJ chief

Posted in Research on April 21st, 2015 by steve

UK“Peer review is a sacred cow that is ready to be slain, a former editor-in-chief of the British Medical Journal has said. Richard Smith, who edited the BMJ between 1991 and 2004, told the Royal Society’s Future of Scholarly Scientific Communication conference on 20 April that there was no evidence that pre-publication peer review improved papers or detected errors or fraud …” (more)

[Paul Jump, Times Higher Education, 21 April]

Tags: ,

How International Is Peer Review?

Posted in Research on January 21st, 2015 by steve

USA“Impartiality in peer review has been a focus of recent debate as a number of studies have shown that peer review is not as impartial as it is assumed to be (eg Lamont, 2009). Studies have shown that peer-review in academia is biased against many characteristics of the author …” (more)

[Liudvika Leiyste, insidehighered, 20 January]

Tags:

Open access is tiring out peer reviewers

Posted in Research on November 26th, 2014 by steve

International“As numbers of published articles rise, the scholarly review system must adapt to avoid unmanageable burdens and slipping standards, says Martijn Arns …” (more)

[Nature News & Comment, 25 November]

Tags: ,

Peer review is fraught with problems, and we need a fix

Posted in Research on November 18th, 2014 by steve

UK“Dirty Harry once said, ‘Opinions are like assholes; everybody has one’. Now that the internet has made it easier than ever to share an unsolicited opinion, traditional methods of academic review are beginning to show their age …” (more)

[Andy Tattersall, The Conversation, 18 November]

Tags: , ,

Research quality assessment tools: Lessons from Italy

Posted in Research on July 29th, 2014 by steve

Italy“Assessing the quality of academic research is important – particularly in countries where universities receive most of their funding from the government. This column presents evidence from an Italian research assessment exercise …” (more)

[Graziella Bertocchi and others, vox, 28 July]

Tags: , , ,

Retractions are coming thick and fast: it’s time for journal publishers to act

Posted in Research on July 14th, 2014 by steve

“Journal publishers must acknowledge the limitations of traditional peer review and fully embrace post-publication peer review …” (more)

[Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky, Guardian, 14 July]

Tags: , ,

Ending with Open Access, Beginning with Open Access

Posted in Research on July 8th, 2014 by steve

“There is something about the term ‘post-publication peer review’ that doesn’t quite fit. On one hand, post-publication peer review seems inevitable …” (more)

[Joseph Esposito, The Scholarly Kitchen, 8 July]

Tags: ,

A modest proposal to solve the problem of peer review: Treat evaluation as an in-house publishing function

Posted in Research on June 16th, 2014 by steve

“Peer review is under constant scrutiny due to its failure to adapt to a more effective model in the digital age. Steve Fuller argues that academic evaluation proceeds much too slowly for the quite simple reason that academics are valued mainly for being productive and not evaluative …” (more)

[Impact of Social Sciences, 16 June]

Tags: ,

Frustrated Scholar Creates New Way to Fund and Publish Academic Work

Posted in Research on June 6th, 2014 by steve

“In 2011, Tim Peterson was your archetypal frustrated academic. He’d just landed a paper in the journal Cell but had grown disillusioned with the publishing process after nine months of back-and-forth among his team, the reviewers, and the editors …” (more)

[Avi Wolfman-Arent, Chronicle of Higher Education, 5 June]

Tags: , ,

Hate the peer-review process? Einstein did too

Posted in Research on June 2nd, 2014 by steve

“Most academic papers today are published only after some academic peers have had a chance to review the merits and limitations of the work. This seems like a good idea, but there is a growing movement that wants to retort as Albert Einstein did to such a review process …” (more)

[Andre Spicer and Thomas Roulet, The Conversation, 2 June]

Tags: ,

What Motivates Reviewers? An Experiment in Economics

Posted in Research on May 28th, 2014 by steve

“‘It takes a researcher 3-5 hours to review a manuscript’, editors quip, ‘whether you give him/her a week or six months!’ I’ve heard many variations on this joke, but the principle remains: most people are motivated by deadlines and need periodic reminders to meet them …” (more)

[Phil Davis, The Scholarly Kitchen, 28 May]

Tags: , ,

A Metric for the Quality of Peer Review: Interview with Adam Etkin of PreSCORE

Posted in Research on February 4th, 2014 by steve

“Peer review – the process whereby new results are scrutinized by competent peers before publication – forms the heart of most scientific journals …” (more)

[Phil Davis, The Scholarly Kitchen, 4 February]

Tags: ,

Open Access and the self-forming journal hierarchy

Posted in Research on January 18th, 2014 by steve

“I recently posted a piece on Occam’ Corner explaining why I think instituting radical changes in science publishing should not be a major focus of scientists at this juncture …” (more)

[Steve Caplan, No Comment, 17 January]

Tags: , , ,

Scientific publishing: How to fix peer review

Posted in Research on December 4th, 2013 by steve

“Peer review, many boffins argue, channelling Churchill, is the worst way to ensure quality of research, except all the others. The system, which relies on papers being vetted by anonymous experts prior to publication, has underpinned scientific literature for decades …” (more)

[The Economist, 4 December]

Tags: ,

Is impact factor the ‘least-bad’ way to judge the quality of a scientific paper?

Posted in Research on October 14th, 2013 by steve

“We’ve sometimes said, paraphrasing Winston Churchill, that pre-publication peer review is the worst way to vet science, except for all the other ways that have been tried from time to time …” (more)

[Ivan Oransky, Retraction Watch, 14 October]

Tags: ,

Peer review: how to get it right – 10 tips

Posted in Research on September 27th, 2013 by steve

“Brian Lucey shares some expert advice on how to be helpful, scientific and professional when reviewing a paper …” (more)

[Guardian Professional, 27 September]

Tags:

Predicting who will publish or perish as career academics

Posted in Research on September 26th, 2013 by steve

Australia“It doesn’t matter whether or not you think it’s fair: if you’re an academic, your publishing record will have a crucial impact on your career. It can profoundly affect your prospects for employment, for winning research grants, for climbing the academic ladder, for having a teaching load that doesn’t absorb all your time …” (more)

[Bill Laurance, The Conversation, 25 September]

Tags: ,

Open peer review is a welcome step towards transparency, but heightened visibility may also mean vulnerability

Posted in Research on September 17th, 2013 by steve

“Open peer review is an unfamiliar experience for many academics, with the added transparency acting as something of a shock to the system. Cristina Costa argues that the change could facilitate a welcome shift away from ‘peer view as monologue’ towards a more dialogical approach …” (more)

[Impact of Social Sciences, 17 September]

Tags:

Random thoughts of an editor on peer review

Posted in Research on September 16th, 2013 by steve

“One of the most frustrating things about being a journal editor is dealing with the process of getting good reviews. First you have to get someone to agree, and then typically it’s a chase to get the review in …” (more)

[Brian M Lucey, 16 September]

Tags: