Motivating and Maintaining Ethics, Equity, Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Expertise in Peer Review

Scientists who engage in science and the scientific endeavor should seek truth with conviction of morals and commitment to ethics. While the number of publications continues to increase, the number of retractions has increased at a faster rate. Journals publish fraudulent research papers despite claims of peer review and adherence to publishing ethics. Nevertheless, appropriate ethical peer review will remain a gatekeeper when selecting research manuscripts in scholarly publishing and approving research applications for grant funding. However, this peer review must become more open, fair, transparent, equitable, and just with new recommendations and guidelines for reproducible and accountable reviews that support and promote fair citation and citational justice. We should engineer this new peer-review process with modern informatics technology and information science to provide and defend better safeguards for truth and integrity, to clarify and maintain the provenance of information and ideas, and to rebuild and restore trust in scholarly research institutions. Indeed, this new approach will be necessary in the current post-truth era to counter the ease and speed with which mis-information, dis-information, anti-information, caco-information, and mal-information spread through the internet, web, news, and social media. The most important question for application of new peer-review methods to these information wars should be ‘Who does what when?’ in support of reproducible and accountable reviews. Who refers to the authors, reviewers, editors, and publishers as participants in the review process. What refers to disclosure of the participants' identities, the material content of author manuscripts and reviewer commentaries, and other communications between authors and reviewers. When refers to tracking the sequential points in time for which disclosure of whose identity, which content, and which communication at which step of the peer-review process for which audience of readers and reviewers. We believe that quality peer review, and peer review of peer review, must be motivated and maintained by elevating their status and prestige to an art and a science. Both peer review itself and peer review analyses of peer reviews should be incentivised by publishing peer reviews as citable references separately from the research report reviewed while crossreferenced and crosslinked to the report reviewed

Cutting the Gordian knot: a historical and taxonomic revision of the Jurassic crocodylomorph Metriorhynchus

Figure 3. Metriorhynchus brevirostris holotype MHNG V-2232. A, anterior view; B, posterior view. See text for anatomical abbreviations.Published as part of Young, Mark T., Brignon, Arnaud, Sachs, Sven, Hornung, Jahn J., Foffa, Davide, Kitson, James J. N., Johnson, Michela M. & Steel, Lorna, 2021, Cutting the Gordian knot: a historical and taxonomic revision of the Jurassic crocodylomorph Metriorhynchus, pp. 510-553 in Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 192 (2) on page 535, DOI: 10.1093/zoolinnean/zlaa092, http://zenodo.org/record/701700

The Wooster Voice (Wooster, OH), 1982-01-15

This first edition of 1982 includes a lengthy and critical review of 1981 both nationally and locally. For example, one forum contributor bemoans the students\u27 lack of activism on Wooster\u27s campus and claims that Pat Benatar\u27s song Hit Me With Your Best Shot encourages sexism. This edition also features an article about Great Decisions, an opportunity for the campus community to discuss politics. The 01/15/1982 paper introduces Soviet expansion as a major topic for the Great Decisions forum.https://openworks.wooster.edu/voice1981-1990/1022/thumbnail.jp

The Wooster Voice (Wooster, OH), 1982-01-15

This first edition of 1982 includes a lengthy and critical review of 1981 both nationally and locally. For example, one forum contributor bemoans the students\u27 lack of activism on Wooster\u27s campus and claims that Pat Benatar\u27s song Hit Me With Your Best Shot encourages sexism. This edition also features an article about Great Decisions, an opportunity for the campus community to discuss politics. The 01/15/1982 paper introduces Soviet expansion as a major topic for the Great Decisions forum.https://openworks.wooster.edu/voice1981-1990/1022/thumbnail.jp

Theories of Informetrics and Scholarly Communication

Scientometrics have become an essential element in the practice and evaluation of science and research, including both the evaluation of individuals and national assessment exercises. Yet, researchers and practitioners in this field have lacked clear theories to guide their work. As early as 1981, then doctoral student Blaise Cronin published "The need for a theory of citing" —a call to arms for the fledgling scientometric community to produce foundational theories upon which the work of the field could be based. More than three decades later, the time has come to reach out the field again and ask how they have responded to this call. This book compiles the foundational theories that guide informetrics and scholarly communication research. It is a much needed compilation by leading scholars in the field that gathers together the theories that guide our understanding of authorship, citing, and impact