Before the law: open access, quality control and the future of peer review

— OA is not about abandoning peer review but it does provide the opportunity to rethink its role and our methods. —67% of existing OA journals do not charge APCs and yet academics have tended to steer clear of them. — People opt for recognised outlets because of the (erroneously) perceived emphasis on publication venue by accreditation structures such as RAE/REF/tenure. — In the print world peer review was historically linked to page limits; these do not apply in the electronic realm. — Double blind review is a misnomer and even then preserved anonymity can be problematic. — The alternative is to publish everything that meets a certain threshold of academic soundness and to let readers decide what should last; in effect a kind of post-publication, or peer-to-peer, review. — This modification of peer review could lead to more collaboration and less insistence on an individual finished product

Promoting equity in the peer review process of journal publication

While there is evidence to support the existence of identity‐based disparities, inequities, and biases in the academic journal peer‐review process, little research supports the presence of this bias in the peer‐review process for academic journals in science education. Through an analysis of six leading journals in science education, we aimed to investigate the extent to which diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), as well as the presence of bias in the peer‐review process, are addressed by these journals. We analyzed trends in the gender/sex, geographical affiliation, race/ethnicity, and the presence of equity‐centered research focus for members of these journals' editors and editorial boards. We found that although gender/sex is well‐balanced in these journals' editors and editorial boards, they are typically North American centric, and White individuals are overwhelmingly represented. Four journals had a quarter or more of individuals who pursue equity‐centered research. Only two journals provided detailed information on how manuscripts are reviewed in their author submission guidelines. All used a double‐blind approach to peer‐review. One of the journals includes an explicit position on DEI. Based on the analyses and reflections on our own experiences, we recommend science education journals consider ways to probe whether bias does exist in their peer‐review process, diversify their board to be more inclusive of scholars from communities historically marginalized, and move to a triple‐blind approach to their peer‐review process as mechanisms to mitigate bias in the journal peer review

Peer review innovations in Humanities: how can scholars in A&H profit of the "wisdom of the crowds"?

Though supported by a large number of scholars in Scientific, Technical, and Medical (STM) disciplines traditional peer review does not live up to the needs of an efficient scholarly communication system and of quality research control. Therefore journals in STM are experimenting different forms of refereeing in combination with more traditional peer review system. Such is the case of PLoSONE, Biology Direct, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, and JIME. However in STM disciplines public peer review is not regarded an alternative to more traditional quality certification forms. It may be the case in the Arts & Humanities. In A&H publishing system peer review is by far a less common practice. Therefore the adoption of a social peer review process could be very useful to foster research in humanities. Scholars in A&H can profit of the interactive evaluation forms of the public peer-review to strengthen the scholarly debate, to foster active international and interdisciplinary discussions, to focus social attention on topics in Humanities, to broaden the borders of the cultural and intellectual discourse among non-scholars (public debate). This paper will provide some examples of how social peer review has been adopted by innovative communities of scholars in humanities to publish new experimental digital book models. In the digital environment the concepts of “document”, of “completeness of a document” and of “evaluation” is fast changing. In a close future in scholarly publishing it might become possible to overcome the rigid distinction between ex-ante and ex-post evaluation as the evaluation process might become an enduring part of the text itsel

Peer Review system: A Golden standard for publications process

Peer review process helps in evaluating and validating of research that is published in the journals. U.S. Office of Research Integrity reported that data fraudulence was found to be involved in 94% cases of misconduct from 228 identified articles between 1994–2012. If fraud in published article are significantly as high as reported, the question arise in mind, were these articles peer reviewed? Another report said that the reviewers failed to detect 16 cases of fabricated article of Jan Hendrick Schon. Superficial peer reviewing process does not reveals suspicion of misconduct. Lack of knowledge of systemic review process not only demolish the academic integrity in publication but also loss the trust of the people of the institution, the nation, and the world. The aim of this review article is to aware stakeholders specially novice reviewers about the peer review system. Beginners will understand how to review an article and they can justify better action choices in dealing with reviewing an article

Barriers to Scientific Contributions: The Author’s Formula

Recently I completed a review of the empirical research on scientific journals (Armstrong 1982). This review provided evidence for an “author’s formula,” a set of rules that authors can use to increase the likelihood and speed of acceptance of their manuscripts. Authors should: (1) not pick an important problem, (2) not challenge existing beliefs, (3) not obtain surprising results, (4) not use simple methods, (5) not provide full disclosure, and (6) not write clearly. Peters & Ceci (P&C) are obviously ignorant of the author’s formula. In their extension of the Kosinski study (Ross 1979; 1980), they broke most of the rules

Repository Interface for Overlaid Journal Archives: costs estimates and sustainability issues

The RIOJA project (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ls/rioja) investigated the feasibility of an overlay journal model in collaboration with the arXiv and in the scientific domain of astrophysics and cosmology. Scientists in this community are active users of e-prints repositories such as the arXiv. Furthermore, they have the support of Professional Associations and Learned Societies that have been pioneers in adapting to new publishing models and in particular electronic journals. Long term access to information as well as maintaining provision to sustainable systems/services is important to various parties in the scholarly communication system: the creators of information, developers and managers of services, libraries, publishers, funders and also users. Although scientific journals have been in existence since the 18th century (Lawal, 2001), factors such as increased journal subscription prices in the last decades and the emergence of new technologies have triggered discussions on the potential of new business models for publishing research. Furthermore, the advent of the open access movement also contributed to exploration of the issues around free access to information and provision of sustainable services. Exploring aspects of sustainability is something that should be seen over a period of time and whether launching, converting or simply maintaining a new or existing system/service the needs of the community it serves should be taken into account. Scientific journal publishing is a complex process. Besides disseminating scientific knowledge, registration of a claim for new discovery and a quality “stamp” it also facilitates social factors. Besides making research findings available and contributing to the advancement of knowledge, publishing is also a means for measuring quality of the work of scientists, allocating funding, and acknowledging contributions to knowledge. In this report, we will try to provide an overview of a new publishing model, that of the overlay journal. We will discuss the use of the arXiv by scientists in astrophysics and cosmology as well as the role of professional associations and learned societies in the publishing process for this community. We will briefly explain the methods employed to compile this report. We will also briefly present the RIOJA toolkit before we try and identify costs in the publishing process associated with the functions of registration, certification, and awareness and archiving. This report does not aim to provide a comprehensive report of actual journal publishing costings. Despite the fact that there are studies in existence that tried to document costs associated with journal publishing, the information presented there rarely corresponds to the actual costs of individual journal functions. In addition, the interviews with publishers and editors did not reveal any substantial information about costings that have not already been reported in the literature or are available on some publishers' websites. Where appropriate, this report aims to acknowledge studies conducted previously as pointers to further reading and, where applicable, to compare reported findings to observations made during the development and implementation of the RIOJA toolkit (described below). We will conclude this report with some of the issues reported in the literature around sustainability of services and some brief suggestions for further work

Emotional well-being in people with sight loss: Lessons from the grey literature

Literature that is not peer-reviewed and distributed through a publisher is known as ‘grey’. As it is used to inform policy and practice we reviewed the grey literature concerning emotional well-being in people with sight loss. We consulted and searched the websites of UK voluntary organizations, and scanned reference lists of previous reviews for reports available from 2001 to 2008. We summarized 24 studies in two sections: observations that assessed psychosocial well-being or demand for support services (n = 15); and evaluations of interventions that aimed to improve emotional well-being (n = 9). Observations showed that people with sight loss can report low emotional well-being, but their statistical and clinical significance requires testing. Interventions showed promise for counselling but also require further evaluation. We encourage service providers and researchers to collaborate and produce high quality research to more persuasively inform policy and practice

New frontiers of peer review

This news article introduces a new COST Action entitled PEERE (TD1306), which stands for New Frontiers of Peer Review (PEERE). PEERE is a trans-domain proposal which brings together researchers from various different disciplines and science stake-holders for the purpose of reviewing the process of peer review. PEERE officially began in May 2014 and will end in May 2018. Thirty-one countries, including Malta, are currently participating in the Action. In order to set the context in which this COST Action was initiated, we first look very briefly at the history of the process of peer review and various models of peer review currently in use. We then share what this COST Action hopes to achieve.peer-reviewe

Peer Review for Journals: Evidence on Quality Control, Fairness, and Innovation

I reviewed the published empirical evidence concerning journal peer review, which consisted of 68 papers, all but three published since 1975. Peer review improves quality, but its use to screen papers has met with limited success. Current procedures to assure quality and fairness seem to discourage scientific advancement, especially important innovations, because findings that conflict with current beliefs are often judged to have defects. Editors can use procedures to encourage the publication of papers with innovative findings such as invited papers, early-acceptance procedures, author nominations of reviewers, results-blind reviews, structured rating sheets, open peer review, and, in particular, electronic publication. Some journals are currently using these procedures. The basic principle behind the proposals is to change the decision from whether to publish a paper to how to publish itpeer review, journals, publications

Research on Scientific Journals: Implications for Editors and Authors

A review of editorial policies of leading journals and of research relevant to scientific journals revealed conflicts between 'science' and 'scientists.” Owing to these conflicts, papers are often weak on objectivity and replicability. Furthermore, papers often fall short on importance, competence, intelligibility, or efficiency. Suggestions were made for editorial policies such as: (1) structured guidelines for referees, (2) open peer review, (3) blind reviews, and (4) full disclosure of data and method. Of major importance, an author's “Note to Referees” (describing the hypotheses and design, but not the results) was suggested to improve the objectivity of the ratings of importance and competence. Also, recommendations are made to authors for improving contributions to science (such as the use of multiple hypotheses) and for promoting their careers (such as using complex methods and obtuse writing).scientific journals, authors, research, editors