Archives des mots-clés : Alex Holcombe

A Billion Dollar Donation: The Cost, and Inefficiency of, Researchers’ Time Spent on Peer Review

Posté le par

Authors : Balazs Aczel, Barnabas Szaszi, Alex Holcombe

Background

The amount and value of researchers’ peer review work is critical for academia and publishing. However, it is rarely recognized, its magnitude is unknown, and alternative ways of organizing peer review labor are rarely considered.

Methods

In this paper, we provide an estimate of researchers’ time and the salary-based contribution to the peer-review system, using publicly available data.

Results

We found that the total time reviewers globally worked on peer reviews was over 100 million hours in 2019, equivalent to over 12 thousand years. The estimated monetary value of the time US-based reviewers spent on reviews was over 1.1 billion USD in 2019. For China-based reviewers, the estimate is over 600 million USD, and for UK-based, over 200 million USD.

Conclusions

While these results are only rough estimates, they highlight the enormous amount of work and time that researchers provide to the publication system, and the importance of considering alternative ways of structuring, and paying for, peer review. We foster this process by discussing some alternative models that aim to improve the return on investment of scholarly publishing.

URL : A Billion Dollar Donation: The Cost, and Inefficiency of, Researchers’ Time Spent on Peer Review

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/5h9z4

Questionable Research Practices and Open Science in Quantitative Criminology

Posté le par

Authors : Jason Chinn, Justin Pickett, Simine Vazire, Alex Holcombe

Objectives

Questionable research practices (QRPs) lead to incorrect research results and contribute to irreproducibility in science. Researchers and institutions have proposed open science practices (OSPs) to improve the detectability of QRPs and the credibility of science. We examine the prevalence of QRPs and OSPs in criminology, and researchers’ opinions of those practices.

Methods

We administered an anonymous survey to authors of articles published in criminology journals. Respondents self-reported their own use of 10 QRPs and 5 OSPs. They also estimated the prevalence of use by others, and reported their attitudes toward the practices.

Results

QRPs and OSPs are both common in quantitative criminology, about as common as they are in other fields. Criminologists who responded to our survey support using QRPs in some circumstances, but are even more supportive of using OSPs.

We did not detect a significant relationship between methodological training and either QRP or OSP use.

Support for QRPs is negatively and significantly associated with support for OSPs. Perceived prevalence estimates for some practices resembled a uniform distribution, suggesting criminologists have little knowledge of the proportion of researchers that engage in certain questionable practices.

Conclusions

Most quantitative criminologists in our sample use QRPs, and many use multiple QRPs. The substantial prevalence of QRPs raises questions about the validity and reproducibility of published criminological research.

We found promising levels of OSP use, albeit at levels lagging what researchers endorse. The findings thus suggest that additional reforms are needed to decrease QRP use and increase the use of OSPs.

URL : Questionable Research Practices and Open Science in Quantitative Criminology

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/bwm7s