A space to explore, share and shape the issues facing social scientists
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.
Most early career researchers receive little to no training on how to peer review, and it’s not always easy to find consistent or helpful guidance. Here, during Peer Review Week, Katrina Newitt offers some helpful advice on how to get started.
Peer review has become a major editorial challenge for publishers worldwide, but options do exist to help tackle fraudulent peer reviewers. In this post from the Publons blog, some options for what publishers can do are examined.
While most eyes in Washington are focused on tax reform, two new bills that affect social science have been introduced: one that re configures how peer-review would be used for determining research grants, and another that would make use of recommendations from a bipartisan study on evidence-based policy.
If you’ve never done a peer review before, the process might seem a little daunting. In this post from Publons, peer-review experts were asked for the advice on how best to proceed, and their top 12 tips are presented here.
Having worked in academia for the past 30 years and currently serving as vice president of the Academy of Science of South Africa, Brenda Wingfield says she believes peer review and the publication process is perhaps more important than ever in this era of ‘fake news’ – and not just for scientists and academics.
In 1996 Erica Frank wrote a series of editor-reviewer “ideal” communications. Revisiting these suggestions, Michael Blades, editor of the journal Applied Spectroscopy, explores if over two decades later the notion of the “still-imperfect art” of peer review remains the same today.
The founder of StateReviewer outlines a future where humans are written out of the publication process by artificial intelligence. But is the goal of eradicating bias and other malignancies potentially opening the door to a new set of ills?
Peer review clearly isn’t perfect, but rather than simply bypassing it and releasing even more information into an overloaded system, we should focus on making it better, says this life sciences editor. The first step is to reset and clearly state our standards for quality in both publishing and peer reviewing.
