Social Simulation That 'Peers into Peer Review'

This article suggests to view peer review as a social interaction problem and shows reasons for social simulators to investigate it. Although essential for science, peer review is largely understudied and current attempts to reform it are not supported by scientific evidence. We suggest that there is room for social simulation to fill this gap by spotlighting social mechanisms behind peer review at the microscope and understanding their implications for the science system. In particular, social simulation could help to understand why voluntary peer review works at all, explore the relevance of social sanctions and reputational motives to increase the commitment of agents involved, cast light on the economic cost of this institution for the science system and understand the influence of signals and social networks in determining biases in the reviewing process. Finally, social simulation could help to test policy scenarios to maximise the efficacy and efficiency of various peer review schemes under specific circumstances and for everyone involved.Peer Review, Social Simulation, Social Norms, Selection Biases, Science Policy

Reviews, Reviewers, and Reviewing: The “Tragedy of the Commons” in the Scientific Publication Process

Everybody wants to get a good review but not everybody is willing to give a good review. In my experience, this fact has resulted in a modern-day instance of “the tragedy of the commons” in which everyone seeks a precious common resource (in this case, the scholarship of peer review in scientific publication) but everyone less widely provides it. Editors face an emerging review culture in which many qualified colleagues often seem too busy, too disinterested, or simply too inaccessible to engage with for peer review purposes, and which leads to issues that are, indeed, tragic in the practice of science

Making available scientific information in the third millennium: perspectives for the neuroscientific community

The rules governing the globalised process of sharing scientific information in the research community are rapidly changing. From the 1950s, commercial publishers started owning a large number of scientific journals and consequently the marketable value of a submitted manuscript has become an increasingly important factor in publishing decisions. Recently some publishers have developed the Open Access (OA), a business scheme which may help stopping such tendency. Indeed, in the case of an open-access publication, the marketable value of a manuscript may be not the primary consideration, since access to the research is not being sold. This may push scientists to re-consider the purpose of peer reviewing. However, costs remain a key point in managing scientific journals because OA method does not eliminate peer review process. Thus, OA may not solve the problem of the market pressures on publishing strategies. Furthermore, the OA has another strong point: everyone can read OA papers, including scientist living in poor countries. But, will OA method create new discriminations on who can publish on OA journals? Will it be possible to really exclude or strongly limit the influences of the market from scientific publishing? The example of the non-profit e-print arXiv (http://arXiv.org/), a fully automated electronic archive and distribution server for research papers with no peer review will be discussed. For neuroscientists, the possibility to make available scientific data, even in the case of negative results (usually, very difficult to publish) is an important step to avoid purposeless repetition of costly experiments involving animal subjects. The possibility to arrange internationally or locally peer reviewed papers in institutional repositories (IR) is a necessity. However, access to IR should be regulated, e.g. banning or limiting profit organizations and exploiting internet systems, professional organizations or network groups

The Miracle of Peer Review and Development in Science: An Agent-Based Model

It is not easy to rationalize how peer review, as the current grassroots of science, can work based on voluntary contributions of reviewers. There is no rationale to write impartial and thorough evaluations. Consequently, there is no risk in submitting low-quality work by authors. As a result, scientists face a social dilemma: if everyone acts according to his or her own self-interest, low scientific quality is produced. Still, in practice, reviewers as well as authors invest high effort in reviews and submissions. We examine how the increased relevance of public good benefits (journal impact factor), the editorial policy of handling incoming reviews, and the acceptance decisions that take into account reputational information can help the evolution of high-quality contributions from authors. High effort from the side of reviewers is problematic even if authors cooperate: reviewers are still best off by producing low-quality reviews, which does not hinder scientific development, just adds random noise and unnecessary costs to it. We show with agent-based simulations that tacit agreements between authors that are based on reciprocity might decrease these costs, but does not result in superior scientific quality. Our study underlines why certain self-emerged current practices, such as the increased importance of journal metrics, the reputation-based selection of reviewers, and the reputation bias in acceptance work efficiently for scientific development. Our results find no answers, however, how the system of peer review with impartial and thorough evaluations could be sustainable jointly with rapid scientific development.Comment: Submitted to Scientometric

Peer Counseling: Method, Metaphor, or Mindset?

Peer Counseling and Peer-to-Peer-Counseling are two common counseling formats worldwide where people meet each other at eye level. Rooted in the Independent Living and Self-Help Movement, “classic” Peer Counseling can be considered a professional counseling service offered by and for people with disabilities. In this article, the question is explored whether Peer Counseling is far more reaching than just being labeled as a counseling method. In many countries, it has now found a permanent place in the counseling landscape among others. Furthermore, the question arises whether it does not also serve as a metaphor for a self-determined way of life. In addition, in this study it will be determined whether and why the mindset and attitude are also important in professional Peer Counseling. Since 2018, Peer Counseling has been offered at over 500 counseling centers in Germany as part of the “Ergänzende unabhängige Teilhabeberatung—EUTB®” (Additional Independent Participation Consulting). At a low-threshold and accessible level, advice seekers can find competent individual-centered professional counseling here—often from experts by experience: peers. For many people seeking advice, this is the first and last point of contact for all matters relating to rehabilitation, inclusion and social participation. As part of my PhD-project, I am doing research on Peer Counseling and parallel to this, I train EUTB- and Peer Counselors. Peer Counseling actually is (much more than) a counseling approach which represents a true enrichment for everyone

Children’s Choices for 2008: A project of the International Reading Association and The Children’s Book Council

Each year 12,500 school children from different regions of the United States read and vote on the newly published children’s and young adults’ trade books that they like best. The Children’s Choices for 2008 list is the 34th in a series that first appeared as “Classroom Choices” in the November 1975 issue of The Reading Teacher (RT), a peer-reviewed journal for preschool, primary, and elementary levels published eight times a year by the International Reading Association (IRA). This list is designed for use not only by teachers, librarians, administrators, and booksellers, but also by parents, grandparents, caregivers, and everyone who wishes to encourage young people to read for pleasure

Materialisme : Penyebab dan Konsekuensi

Materialism defined as the importance a person places on possessions and their acquisition as a necessary or desirable form of conduct to reach desired end states, including happiness. It has certain negative effects : increasing risk for diminished well-being (happiness) afterwards lead to negative subjective well-being, low level se/f- determination, low level gratitude and negative meaning in life. This is a phenomenon have been around everywhere and everyone: kids, teenagers even adults, emerging because of ever increasing the symbolic consumption, not utilitarian consumption. Some researchs showed that there are some causes be responsible for materialism: dominant social paradigm, peer group pressure, and conspicuous consumption. Concerning its negative effects, socialization process about materialism must be done to everybody comprehensively