A space to explore, share and shape the issues facing social and behavioral scientists
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.
To help celebrate Peer Review Week 2016, the steering committee for the commemoration asked the 20+ organisations on the group to tell us how they #recognizereview and what more they hope to do in future. Their responses show a clear understanding of the importance of peer review and a firm commitment to supporting more recognition for review in future.
Recent findings suggest interdisciplinary research is less likely to be funded than discipline-based research proposals, reports Gabriele Bammer, who argues different review processes may well be required to do justice to these different kinds of interdisciplinarity.
Researchers decided to conduct behavioral testing on competition and the process of peer review. What they learned offers some prescriptions for improving peer review going forward.
Jon Tennant takes a look at the transformations underway aimed at tackling the widespread dissatisfaction with the system of peer review. He provides further background on the platform ScienceOpen, which seeks to enable a process of transparent, self-regulating, peer review, where knowledge sharing is encouraged, valued, and rewarded. By adopting a more transparent process of research evaluation, we move one step closer towards a fairer and democratic research process.
The author of the new book ‘The Knowledge War’ discusses the intricacies of peer review as practiced, and concludes with a clarion call for reviewers and editors to remember their duties, not their interests.
This piece was originally posted in Management INK, a SAGE blog highlighting top scholarship and catering to academics, researchers and practitioners […]
Andrew Preston of Publons argues that while the academic community does “a pretty good job of peer reviewing,” the process remains hampered by the 19th century technology used to manage the process.
We’re pleased to congratulate Andrew D. Brown, Devaki Rau, Chris Robert and Li-Yun Sun, winners of Group and Organization Management‘s […]
Peer Review Week begins today, a week to explore the role of peer review in addressing academic quality and rigor. Here, Sense About Science details why it feels it’s important to explain peer review to the wider world.
