A space to explore, share and shape the issues facing social and behavioral scientists
The authors – all journal editors -believe that feedback given in peer review should be rigorous, but will be more readily incorporated if kindly given, to the advancement of science.
For all sorts of reasons, our article “A Design Thinking Approach to Teaching Sustainability” should not have been written. This […]
The aim of peer review for research grants and academic hiring boards is to provide expert independent judgement on the quality of research proposals and candidates. Based on findings from a recent survey, Liv Langfeldt, Dag W. Aksnes and Ingvild Reymert, find metrics continue to play a significant role in shaping these decisions, especially for reviewers who are highly ranked themselves.
Robin Haunschild and Lutz Bornmann discuss their recent findings on how retracted papers were talked about on the social media platform Twitter and how this can be mapped onto the eventual retraction notices of these articles.
As a rap artist and academic, A.D. Carson wondered if he could get his new album “published” through an academic press?
Academic capitalism exhibit a lack of transparency and accountability where it truly matters. Peer review and the ways in which journals often handle peer reviews are one key site of such intransparency and unaccountability.
Peer review is integral to the award of funds for academic research. Lambros Roumbanis argues that randomly awarding research funding via lotteries presents a more rational, efficient and most importantly unbiased means of distributing research funding.
Their paper about the evolution of malaria was in review for what seemed like an eternity. Every month, Susan Perkins and her then-graduate student Spencer Galen would check in with the editors. The problem seemed to be a lack of peer reviewers …
Robert J. Marks, the director of the Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence, argues that academic reformers are battling numerical laws that govern how incentives work. His counsel? Know your enemy!
It’s hoped open peer review could improve the speed and quality of reviews, but, not all academics are comfortable with open peer review and remain fearful of their comments and views being subject to public scrutiny. Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva argues this may prevent the open review system from being truly inclusive.
During this Peer Review Week 2018, Tom Culley shares findings from the new Publons “Global State of Peer Review” report. As demands on the peer review system increase, reviewers are actually becoming less responsive to invitations.
A new process developed by Princeton’s Matthew Salganik for reviewing academic manuscripts allows the world at large to examine and weigh in on a book at the same time the manuscript is undergoing peer review.
