Mots-clefs: Peer Review Afficher/masquer les discussions | Raccourcis clavier

  • Hans Dillaerts le 11 January 2014 à 15 h 43 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: , Peer Review, ,   

    L’Avenir du contrôle par les pairs dans la publication scientifique face au défis du libre accès :

    « Le sujet de notre thèse « L’Avenir du contrôle par les pairs dans la publication scientifique face aux défis du libre accès » aborde la problématique du contrôle par les pairs à l’ère d’Internet. Composé de trois parties (Brève histoire de la communication humaine, Evolution et outils du libre accès et Contrôle par les pairs et libre accès), il retrace l’évolution de la communication humaine associée à une étape primordiale et indispensable de la Science : le contrôle par les pairs. Il essaye de répondre à la question de son devenir et orientation dans un monde en changement constant ainsi qu’au devenir de la publication de la science et de la construction science elle-même dans un monde de plus en plus ouvert et rapide. »

    « The subject of our thesis « The future of peer review in the scholarly publication and the challenge of open access  » pertains to the subject of peer review in the Internet age .Made up of three distincts parts (« Short history of human communication , Evolution and open access tools , Peer review and open access ) it relates the human communication associated to an important and unavoidable stage of Science : peer review .it tries to answer the question of its future and orientation in a world in a perpetual change and also the future of science publication and its construction in a more and more rapid and open world. »

    URL : http://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00922600

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

     
  • Hans Dillaerts le 6 January 2014 à 12 h 01 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: , Peer Review,   

    With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility: the Importance of Rejection, Power, and Editors in the Practice of Scientific Publishing :

    « Peer review is an important element of scientific communication but deserves quantitative examination. We used data from the handling service manuscript Central for ten mid-tier ecology and evolution journals to test whether number of external reviews completed improved citation rates for all accepted manuscripts. Contrary to a previous study examining this issue using resubmission data as a proxy for reviews, we show that citation rates of manuscripts do not correlate with the number of individuals that provided reviews. Importantly, externally-reviewed papers do not outperform editor-only reviewed published papers in terms of visibility within a 5-year citation window. These findings suggest that in many instances editors can be all that is needed to review papers (or at least conduct the critical first review to assess general suitability) if the purpose of peer review is to primarily filter and that journals can consider reducing the number of referees associated with reviewing ecology and evolution papers. »

    URL : http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0085382

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

     
  • Hans Dillaerts le 21 April 2013 à 19 h 00 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: Peer Review   

    How important tasks are performed: peer review :

    « The advancement of various fields of science depends on the actions of individual scientists via the peer review process. The referees’ work patterns and stochastic nature of decision making both relate to the particular features of refereeing and to the universal aspects of human behavior. Here, we show that the time a referee takes to write a report on a scientific manuscript depends on the final verdict. The data is compared to a model, where the review takes place in an ongoing competition of completing an important composite task with a large number of concurrent ones – a Deadline -effect. In peer review human decision making and task completion combine both long-range predictability and stochastic variation due to a large degree of ever-changing external « friction ». »

    URL : http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4963

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

     
  • Hans Dillaerts le 23 February 2013 à 22 h 09 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: Peer Review,   

    Modeling peer review: an agent-based approach :

    « The peer review system is under severe strain. Corrections have been proposed, but experiments to determine effective measures are difficult to perform. I propose a framework in which alternatives to the current peer review system can be studied quantitatively using agent-based modeling. I implement three possible systems. I show how, all other things being equal, these alternatives produce different results in terms of speed of publication, quality control, reviewers’ effort, and authors’ impact. This modeling framework can be used to test other solutions for peer review, leading the way to an improvement of how science is disseminated. »

    URL : http://library.queensu.ca/ojs/index.php/IEE/article/view/4447

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

     
  • Hans Dillaerts le 18 December 2012 à 12 h 12 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: , Peer Review,   

    Peer-Reviewed Open Research Data: Results of a Pilot :

    « Peer review of publications is at the core of science and primarily seen as instrument for ensuring research quality. However, it is less common to independently value the quality of the underlying data as well. In the light of the ‘data deluge’ it makes sense to extend peer review to the data itself and this way evaluate the degree to which the data are fit for re-use. This paper describes a pilot study at EASY – the electronic archive for (open) research data at our institution. In EASY, researchers can archive their data and add metadata themselves. Devoted to open access and data sharing, at the archive we are interested in further enriching these metadata with peer reviews.

    As a pilot, we established a workflow where researchers who have downloaded data sets from the archive were asked to review the downloaded data set. This paper describes the details of the pilot including the findings, both quantitative and qualitative. Finally, we discuss issues that need to be solved when such a pilot is turned into a structural peer review functionality for the archiving system. »

    URL : http://www.ijdc.net/index.php/ijdc/article/view/231

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

     
  • Hans Dillaerts le 19 November 2012 à 22 h 04 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: , , , Peer Review,   

    Open evaluation: a vision for entirely transparent post-publication peer review and rating for science :

    « The two major functions of a scientific publishing system are to provide access to and evaluation of scientific papers. While open access (OA) is becoming a reality, open evaluation (OE), the other side of the coin, has received less attention. Evaluation steers the attention of the scientific community and thus the very course of science. It also influences the use of scientific findings in public policy. The current system of scientific publishing provides only journal prestige as an indication of the quality of new papers and relies on a non-transparent and noisy pre-publication peer-review process, which delays publication by many months on average. Here I propose an OE system, in which papers are evaluated post-publication in an ongoing fashion by means of open peer review and rating. Through signed ratings and reviews, scientists steer the attention of their field and build their reputation. Reviewers are motivated to be objective, because low-quality or self-serving signed evaluations will negatively impact their reputation. A core feature of this proposal is a division of powers between the accumulation of evaluative evidence and the analysis of this evidence by paper evaluation functions (PEFs). PEFs can be freely defined by individuals or groups (e.g., scientific societies) and provide a plurality of perspectives on the scientific literature. Simple PEFs will use averages of ratings, weighting reviewers (e.g., by H-index), and rating scales (e.g., by relevance to a decision process) in different ways. Complex PEFs will use advanced statistical techniques to infer the quality of a paper. Papers with initially promising ratings will be more deeply evaluated. The continual refinement of PEFs in response to attempts by individuals to influence evaluations in their own favor will make the system ungameable. OA and OE together have the power to revolutionize scientific publishing and usher in a new culture of transparency, constructive criticism, and collaboration. »

    URL : http://www.frontiersin.org/Computational_Neuroscience/10.3389/fncom.2012.00079/full

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

     
  • Hans Dillaerts le 12 September 2012 à 11 h 22 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: Peer Review   

    Peer2ref: a peer-reviewer finding web tool that uses author disambiguation :

    « Background :
    Reviewer and editor selection for peer review is getting harder for authors and publishers due to the specialization onto narrower areas of research carried by the progressive growth of the body of knowledge. Examination of the literature facilitates finding appropriate reviewers but is time consuming and complicated by author name ambiguities.

    Results : We have developed a method called peer2ref to support authors and editors in selecting suitable reviewers for scientific manuscripts. Peer2ref works from a text input, usually the abstract of the manuscript, from which important concepts are extracted as keywords using a fuzzy binary relations approach. The keywords are searched on indexed profiles of words constructed from the bibliography attributed to authors in MEDLINE. The names of these scientists have been previously disambiguated by coauthors identified across the whole MEDLINE. The methods have been implemented in a web server that automatically suggests experts for peer-review among scientists that have authored manuscripts published during the last decade in more than 3,800 journals indexed in MEDLINE.

    Conclusion : peer2ref web server is publicly available at http://www.ogic.ca/projects/peer2ref/ . »

    URL : http://www.biodatamining.org/content/5/1/14/abstract

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

     
  • Hans Dillaerts le 15 July 2012 à 17 h 40 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: interactive discussion, , , , open peer commentary, Peer Review, public peer review, scintific communication, self-regulation,   

    Multi-Stage Open Peer Review: Scientific Evaluation Integrating the Strengths of Traditional Peer Review with the Virtues of Transparency and Self-Regulation :

    « The traditional forms of scientific publishing and peer review do not live up to all demands of efficient communication and quality assurance in today’s highly diverse and rapidly evolving world of science. They need to be advanced and complemented by interactive and transparent forms of review, publication, and discussion that are open to the scientific community and to the public. The advantages of open access, public peer review, and interactive discussion can be efficiently and flexibly combined with the strengths of traditional scientific peer review. Since 2001 the benefits and viability of this approach are clearly demonstrated by the highly successful interactive open access journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP, http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net) and a growing number of sister journals launched and operated by the European Geosciences Union (EGU, http://www.egu.eu) and the open access publisher Copernicus (www.copernicus.org). The interactive open access journals are practicing an integrative multi-stage process of publication and peer review combined with interactive public discussion, which effectively resolves the dilemma between rapid scientific exchange and thorough quality assurance. Key features and achievements of this approach are: top quality and impact, efficient self-regulation and low rejection rates, high attractivity and rapid growth, low costs, and financial sustainability. In fact, ACP and the EGU interactive open access sister journals are by most if not all standards more successful than comparable scientific journals with traditional or alternative forms of peer review (editorial statistics, publication statistics, citation statistics, economic costs, and sustainability). The high efficiency and predictive validity of multi-stage open peer review have been confirmed in a series of dedicated studies by evaluation experts from the social sciences, and the same or similar concepts have recently also been adopted in other disciplines, including the life sciences and economics. Multi-stage open peer review can be flexibly adjusted to the needs and peculiarities of different scientific communities. Due to the flexibility and compatibility with traditional structures of scientific publishing and peer review, the multi-stage open peer review concept enables efficient evolution in scientific communication and quality assurance. It has the potential for swift replacement of hidden peer review as the standard of scientific quality assurance, and it provides a basis for open evaluation in science. »

    URL : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3389610/

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

     
  • Hans Dillaerts le 2 July 2012 à 20 h 00 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: , Peer Review   

    Cooperation between Referees and Authors Increases Peer Review Accuracy :

    « Peer review is fundamentally a cooperative process between scientists in a community who agree to review each other’s work in an unbiased fashion. Peer review is the foundation for decisions concerning publication in journals, awarding of grants, and academic promotion. Here we perform a laboratory study of open and closed peer review based on an online game. We show that when reviewer behavior was made public under open review, reviewers were rewarded for refereeing and formed significantly more cooperative interactions (13% increase in cooperation, P = 0.018). We also show that referees and authors who participated in cooperative interactions had an 11% higher reviewing accuracy rate (P = 0.016). Our results suggest that increasing cooperation in the peer review process can lead to a decreased risk of reviewing errors. »

    URL : http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0026895

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

     
  • Hans Dillaerts le 8 April 2012 à 19 h 21 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: , Peer Review, Publishing Contracts, ,   

    Journal Article Publishing: The Review Process, Ethics, Publishing Contracts, Open Access, and the Kitchen Sink

    Journal Article Publishing: The Review Process, Ethics, Publishing Contracts, Open Access, and the Kitchen Sink from APECS Webinars on Vimeo.

    « Submitting work to peer-reviewed journals is a daunting prospect for many young scientists. In this webinar, Caroline Sutton (co-founder of Co-Action Publishing) and Helle Goldman (Chief Editor of the journal Polar Research) demystify the process by explaining what happens to a manuscript after it’s submitted, focussing on how submissions are evaluated. This webinar introduces a range of topics connected to journal article publishing, including single-blind versus double-blind review, tips for authors submitting manuscripts, ethical issues (plagiarism, salami slicing, duplicate publication), understanding the fine print in publishers’ contracts, open access publishing and how authors benefit from it. »

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

     
c
Écrire un nouvel article
j
Prochain article/commentaire
k
Article/commentaire précédent
r
répondre
e
modifier
o
Afficher/masquer les commentaires
t
haut de page
l
se connecter
h
Afficher/masquer l'aide
shift + esc
Annuler