order lasix ACTG medicine buy voltaren quadriplegia carotid diclofenac without prescription net nucleoside celebrex no prescription umbilical horizontal buy flomax High recurrent clomid institutionalized
 

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:

Problems and pitfalls in the practice of peer-review

Posted in Research on August 26th, 2013 by steve

“For most academics getting papers published is everything. To do that means satisfying the peer review process. You send a paper to a journal. Unless it is ‘desk rejected’, it is sent to reviewers …” (more)

[Kevin Denny: Economics more-or-less, 26 August]

Tags: ,

Why not make available reviews of an article when it’s published?

Posted in Research on July 30th, 2013 by steve

“In response to my post about whether journal article reviewers’ identities should remain confidential (most commenters seem to hold the view that they should), Jeremy Fox mentioned a phenomenon of which I was not aware …” (more)

[Eszter Hargittai, Crooked Timber, 30 July]

Tags: ,

Time for a scientific journal Reproducibility Index

Posted in Research on July 8th, 2013 by steve

“Retraction Watch readers are by now more than likely familiar with the growing concerns over reproducibility in science. In response to issues in fields from cancer research to psychology, scientists have come up with programs such as the Reproducibility Initiative and the Open Science Framework …” (more)

[Ivan Oransky, Retraction Watch, 8 July]

Tags: , , ,

Replicating Austerity Results

Posted in Research on April 21st, 2013 by steve

“An interesting story came to light this week when a student tried to replicate the results in a paper. He found that he wasn’t able to. I wrote something before about the fundamental principle of the scientific method – that the results of an experiment should be capable of replication and verification by others …” (more)

[The World According to Gar, 21 April]

Tags: , , ,

Pre-publication posting and post-publication review will facilitate the correction of errors and will ultimately strengthen published submissions

Posted in Research on April 19th, 2013 by steve

“The traditional peer-review process is not a 100% reliable filter, argues journal editor Rolf Zwaan. It is foolish to view the published result as the only thing that counts simply because it was published …” (more)

[Impact of Social Sciences, 19 April]

Tags: ,

Blogging as post-publication peer review: reasonable or unfair?

Posted in Research on April 15th, 2013 by steve

“The replicability and methodology of a paper published in a high-impact journal has prompted further discussion regarding scientific discourse and responsibility. Dorothy Bishop argues the journal editors should have done more to ensure the veracity of the findings before it was published …” (more)

[Impact of Social Sciences, 15 April]

Tags: ,