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

The structure of blocks with a Klein four defect group

We prove Erdmann’s conjecture [16] stating that every block with a Klein four defect group has a simple module with trivial source, and deduce from this that Puig’s finiteness conjecture holds for source algebras of blocks with a Klein four defect group. The proof uses the classification of finite simple groups

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 and citation data in predicting university rankings, a large-scale analysis

Most Performance-based Research Funding Systems (PRFS) draw on peer review and bibliometric indicators, two different method- ologies which are sometimes combined. A common argument against the use of indicators in such research evaluation exercises is their low corre- lation at the article level with peer review judgments. In this study, we analyse 191,000 papers from 154 higher education institutes which were peer reviewed in a national research evaluation exercise. We combine these data with 6.95 million citations to the original papers. We show that when citation-based indicators are applied at the institutional or departmental level, rather than at the level of individual papers, surpris- ingly large correlations with peer review judgments can be observed, up to r <= 0.802, n = 37, p < 0.001 for some disciplines. In our evaluation of ranking prediction performance based on citation data, we show we can reduce the mean rank prediction error by 25% compared to previous work. This suggests that citation-based indicators are sufficiently aligned with peer review results at the institutional level to be used to lessen the overall burden of peer review on national evaluation exercises leading to considerable cost savings

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