How to identify peer-reviewed publications: Open-identity labels in scholarly book publishing

This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education in Poland (https://www.gov.pl/nauka/) within the DIALOG Programme: the project title ‘Research into Excellence Patterns in Science and Art’. Tim Engels and Raf Guns thank the Flemish government for its funding of the Center for R&D Monitoring (ECOOM). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.This article discusses the open-identity label, i.e., the practice of disclosing reviewers’ names in published scholarly books, a common practice in Central and Eastern European countries. This study’s objective is to verify whether the open-identity label is a type of peer-review label (like those used in Finland and Flanders, i.e., the Flemish part of Belgium), and as such, whether it can be used as a delineation criterion in various systems used to evaluate scholarly publications. We have conducted a two-phase sequential explanatory study. In the first phase, interviews with 20 of the 40 largest Polish publishers of scholarly books were conducted to investigate how Polish publishers control peer reviews and whether the open-identity label can be used to identify peer-reviewed books. In the other phase, two questionnaires were used to analyze perceptions of peer-review and open-identity labelling among authors (n = 600) and reviewers (n = 875) of books published by these 20 publishers. Integrated results allowed us to verify publishers’ claims concerning their peer-review practices. Our findings reveal that publishers actually control peer reviews by providing assessment criteria to reviewers and sending reviews to authors. Publishers rarely ask for permission to disclose reviewers’ names, but it is obvious to reviewers that this practice of disclosing names is part of peer reviewing. This study also shows that only the names of reviewers who accepted manuscripts for publication are disclosed. Thus, most importantly, our analysis shows that the open-identity label that Polish publishers use is a type of peer-review label like those used in Flanders and Finland, and as such, it can be used to identify peer-reviewed scholarly books

Jak rozpoznać recenzowane publikacje – o etykietach z otwartymi danymi recenzentów w monografiach naukowych

W tym artykule omawiamy etykiety z otwartymi danymi recenzentów, czyli praktykę ujawniania danych recenzentów w monografiach naukowych, która jest powszechna w krajach Europy Środkowej i Wschodniej. Celem badania było sprawdzenie, czy etykieta z otwartymi danymi recenzentów jest rodzajem etykiety z informacją o recenzowaniu (na podobieństwo tej stosowanej w Finlandii i Flandrii, tj. we flamandzkiej części Belgii), i, czy jako taka, może być używana jako kryterium w różnych systemach wykorzystywanych do oceny publikacji naukowych. Przeprowadziliśmy dwufazowe badanie z wykorzystaniem sekwencyjnej strategii eksploracyjnej. W pierwszej fazie przeprowadziliśmy wywiady z reprezentantami dwudziestu spośród czterdziestu największych polskich wydawnictw naukowych w celu zbadania, w jaki sposób polscy wydawcy kontrolują proces recenzowania oraz czy można wykorzystać etykiety z otwartymi danymi recenzentów do identyfikacji monografii recenzowanych. W drugiej fazie przeprowadziliśmy dwie ankiety mające na celu analizę postrzegania procesu recenzowania oraz etykiet z otwartymi danymi recenzentów przez autorów (n = 600) oraz recenzentów (n = 875) książek opublikowanych przez dwadzieścia poddanych badaniu wydawnictw. Zintegrowane wyniki pozwoliły nam zweryfikować stwierdzenia wydawców dotyczące ich praktyk związanych z procesem recenzowania. Nasze wyniki wskazują, że wydawcy rzeczywiście kontrolują proces recenzowania poprzez dostarczanie recenzentom kryteriów oceny oraz przesyłanie recenzji autorom. Wydawcy rzadko proszą o pozwolenie na ujawnienie nazwisk recenzentów, ale dla recenzentów oczywistym jest, że umieszczanie ich danych w monografii jest częścią procesu recenzowania. Badanie pokazuje również, że ujawniane są dane tylko tych recenzentów, którzy przyjęli manuskrypt do publikacji. A zatem, co najważniejsze, nasza analiza wykazała, że etykieta z otwartymi danymi recenzentów, której używają polscy wydawcy, jest rodzajem etykiety z informacją o recenzowaniu, takiej jak ta stosowana we Flandrii i Finlandii, i, jako taka, może być stosowana do identyfikacji recenzowanych monografii naukowych.This article discusses the open-identity label, i.e., the practice of disclosing reviewers’ names in published scholarly books, a common practice in Central and Eastern European countries. This study’s objective is to verify whether the open-identity label is a type of peer-review label (like those used in Finland and Flanders, i.e., the Flemish part of Belgium), and as such, whether it can be used as a delineation criterion in various systems used to evaluate scholarly publications. We have conducted a two-phase sequential explanatory study. In the first phase, interviews with 20 of the 40 largest Polish publishers of scholarly books were conducted to investigate how Polish publishers control peer reviews and whether the open-identity label can be used to identify peer-reviewed books. In the other phase, two questionnaires were used to analyze perceptions of peer-review and open-identity labelling among authors (n = 600) and reviewers (n = 875) of books published by these 20 publishers. Integrated results allowed us to verify publishers’ claims concerning their peer-review practices. Our findings reveal that publishers actually control peer reviews by providing assessment criteria to reviewers and sending reviews to authors. Publishers rarely ask for permission to disclose reviewers’ names, but it is obvious to reviewers that this practice of disclosing names is part of peer reviewing. This study also shows that only the names of reviewers who accepted manuscripts for publication are disclosed. Thus, most importantly, our analysis shows that the open-identity label that Polish publishers use is a type of peer-review label like those used in Flanders and Finland, and as such, it can be used to identify peer-reviewed scholarly books

Improving Primo Usability and Teachability with Help from the Users

In the aftermath of a consortium migration to a shared cloud-based resource management and discovery system, a small college library implemented a web usability test to uncover the kinds of difficulties students had with the new interface. Lessons learned from this study led to targeted changes, which simplified aspects of searching, but also enhanced the librarians’ ability to teach more effectively. The authors discuss the testing methods, results, and teaching opportunities, both realized and potential, which arose from implementing changes

Assessment of a method to detect signals for updating systematic reviews.

BackgroundSystematic reviews are a cornerstone of evidence-based medicine but are useful only if up-to-date. Methods for detecting signals of when a systematic review needs updating have face validity, but no proposed method has had an assessment of predictive validity performed.MethodsThe AHRQ Comparative Effectiveness Review program had produced 13 comparative effectiveness reviews (CERs), a subcategory of systematic reviews, by 2009, 11 of which were assessed in 2009 using a surveillance system to determine the degree to which individual conclusions were out of date and to assign a priority for updating each report. Four CERs were judged to be a high priority for updating, four CERs were judged to be medium priority for updating, and three CERs were judged to be low priority for updating. AHRQ then commissioned full update reviews for 9 of these 11 CERs. Where possible, we matched the original conclusions with their corresponding conclusions in the update reports, and compared the congruence between these pairs with our original predictions about which conclusions in each CER remained valid. We then classified the concordance of each pair as good, fair, or poor. We also made a summary determination of the priority for updating each CER based on the actual changes in conclusions in the updated report, and compared these determinations with the earlier assessments of priority.ResultsThe 9 CERs included 149 individual conclusions, 84% with matches in the update reports. Across reports, 83% of matched conclusions had good concordance, and 99% had good or fair concordance. The one instance of poor concordance was partially attributable to the publication of new evidence after the surveillance signal searches had been done. Both CERs originally judged as being low priority for updating had no substantive changes to their conclusions in the actual updated report. The agreement on overall priority for updating between prediction and actual changes to conclusions was Kappa = 0.74.ConclusionsThese results provide some support for the validity of a surveillance system for detecting signals indicating when a systematic review needs updating

Law Enforcement as Legal Mobilization: Reforming the Pharmaceutical Industry Through Government Litigation

Scholars of legal mobilization have long explored how litigation is used as a resource for social and political change. While most studies focus on the actions of private groups, this article considers law enforcement as a form of legal mobilization. Employing a case study of recent pharmaceutical litigation, this article examines how prosecutors have mobilized the law to reshape corporate responsibilities in the prescription drug industry. Prosecutors\u27 litigation campaigns have forced changes in organizational practices, expanded the scope of the conflict over pharmaceutical industry actions, and established new legal norms that have spread throughout the political system. This form of prosecutor-led legal mobilization has occurred in other contexts as well, including gun control and mortgage lending. In addition to indicating how lawyers within the state can engage in a form of cause lawyering, the government litigation explored in this article illustrates both the instrumental and constitutive power of the law

The OpenupEd quality label: benchmarks for MOOCs

In this paper we report on the development of the OpenupEd Quality Label, a self-assessment and review quality assurance process for the new European OpenupEd portal (www.openuped.eu) for MOOCs (massive open online courses). This process is focused on benchmark statements that seek to capture good practice, both at the level of the institution and at the level of individual courses. The benchmark statements for MOOCs are derived from benchmarks produced by the E xcellence e learning quality projects (E-xcellencelabel.eadtu.eu/). A process of self-assessment and review is intended to encourage quality enhancement, captured in an action plan. We suggest that a quality label for MOOCs will benefit all MOOC stakeholders

Clients\u27 Internal Representations of Their Therapists

Thirteen adults in long-term individual psychotherapy were interviewed regarding their internal representations (defined as bringing to awareness the internalized image ) of their therapists. Results indicated that in the context of a good therapeutic relationship, clients\u27 internal representations combined auditory, visual, and kinesthetic (i.e., felt presence) modalities; were triggered when clients thought about past or future sessions, or when distressed; occurred in diverse locations; and varied in frequency, duration, and intensity. Clients felt positively about their representations and used them to introspect or influence therapy within sessions, beyond sessions, or both. The frequency of, comfort with, and use of clients\u27 internal representations increased over the course of therapy, and the representations benefited the therapy and therapeutic relationship. Therapists tended not to take a deliberate role in creating clients\u27 internal representations, and few clients discussed their internal representations with their therapists