Preguntas frecuentes sobre el OPRM

This work was funded by OpenAIRE 2020, EU-Horizon2020 Grant ID 643410.Peer reviewe

PeerPigeon: A Web Application to Support Generalised Peer Review

Peer Review (also known as Peer Assessment) is an important technique in learning, but can be difficult to support through e-learning due to the complexity and variety of peer review processes. In this paper we present PeerPigeon, a Web 2.0 style application that supports generalised Peer Review by using a canonical model of Peer Review based on a Peer Review Pattern consisting of Peer Review Cycles, each defined in terms of Peer Review Transforms. We also demonstrate how PeerPigeon makes use of a Domain Specific Language based on Ruby to define these plans, and thus cope with the irreducible complexity of the flow of documents around a peer network

Systematic analysis of agreement between metrics and peer review in the UK REF

When performing a national research assessment, some countries rely on citation metrics whereas others, such as the UK, primarily use peer review. In the influential Metric Tide report, a low agreement between metrics and peer review in the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) was found. However, earlier studies observed much higher agreement between metrics and peer review in the REF and argued in favour of using metrics. This shows that there is considerable ambiguity in the discussion on agreement between metrics and peer review. We provide clarity in this discussion by considering four important points: (1) the level of aggregation of the analysis; (2) the use of either a size-dependent or a size-independent perspective; (3) the suitability of different measures of agreement; and (4) the uncertainty in peer review. In the context of the REF, we argue that agreement between metrics and peer review should be assessed at the institutional level rather than at the publication level. Both a size-dependent and a size-independent perspective are relevant in the REF. The interpretation of correlations may be problematic and as an alternative we therefore use measures of agreement that are based on the absolute or relative differences between metrics and peer review. To get an idea of the uncertainty in peer review, we rely on a model to bootstrap peer review outcomes. We conclude that particularly in Physics, Clinical Medicine, and Public Health, metrics agree quite well with peer review and may offer an alternative to peer review

Peer review of scholarly communication in health: Perspectives in the Internet age

Peer review is an established form of trust-marking and ensuring quality of scholarly communications. The advent of Internet has had its impact on peer review also. This paper examines the existing approaches of peer review utilizing the Internet. Future approaches, challenges and proposal of a framework for open peer review of directly published scholarly communication on the Internet is also discussed