Open Peer Review Module (OPRM). Final Report

Research productivity is increasing at an unprecedented rate. Technological innovations, a surge in available computing power, and the ease with which digital information is stored and communicated is helping researchers to cross experimentation boundaries, to increase data availability, and to facilitate the transfer of knowledge. As a result, traditional research is being transformed into a dynamic and globally interconnected effort where ideas, tools and results can be made instantly accessible to the entire academic community. Institutional and multidisciplinary open access repositories play a crucial role in this emerging landscape by enabling immediate accessibility to all kinds of research output. One important element still missing from open access repositories, however, is a quantitative assessment of the hosted research items that will facilitate the process of selecting the most relevant and distinguished content. Common currently available metrics, such as number of visits and downloads, do not reflect the quality of a research work, which can only be assessed directly by peers offering their expert opinion together with quantitative ratings based on specific criteria. To address this issue we developed an Open Peer Review Module (OPRM) to be installed on existing open access repositories and offered as an overlay service. Any digital research work hosted in a compliant repository can then be evaluated by an unlimited number of peers who offer not only a qualitative assessment in the form of text, but also quantitative measures that are used to build the reputation of the research work and its authors. Crucially, this evaluation system is open and transparent. By open we mean that the full text of the peer reviews are publicly available along with the original research work. By transparent we mean that the identity of the reviewers is disclosed to the authors and to the public. In our model, openness and transparency are two elemental aspects we consider necessary to address the issue of biased or non-expert opinions, which is inherent in the anonymous peer review model, characterized by the unaccountability of reviewers. Importantly, our open peer review module includes a reviewer reputation system based on the assessment of reviews themselves by other peer reviewers. This allows a sophisticated scaling of the importance of each review on the overall assessment of a research work, based on the reputation of the reviewer. The implementation of a peer review layer on top of institutional repositories could have the potential to transform the current academic publication landscape by introducing new scholarly workflows where a research item can be openly evaluated by the world’s experts right at the institutional repository of its authors, before being submitted to an academic journal. This workflow challenges the current practices of peer review research evaluation. In most cases, journals, acting as brands in a competitive market, foster academic competition for a limited number of publication slots, instead of promoting open scholarship and collaboration. The integration of peer review in repositories will enable direct and transparent academic collaboration between authors and reviewers. In addition, the use of the OPRM will produce novel metrics directly reflecting the perceived quality of a research work by expert peers, contrary to current available altmetrics that only indirectly account for quality through usage statistics.OpenAIR

Open Peer Review Module for Open Access Repositories

Presentamos el primer módulo de revisión por pares abierto para repositorios de acceso abierto. El módulo, diseñado en esta primera etapa para la integración con repositorios DSpace, para evitar ‘endogamia’, permite a cualquier especialista ofrecer una evaluación cualitativa y cuantitativa de cualquier trabajo de investigación alojado en un repositorio compatible. El sistema se apoya en el uso de métricas ponderadas de reputación para artículos, revisiones, autores y revisores. Una función de búsqueda avanzada permite a los usuarios del repositorio filtrar u ordenar los trabajos de investigación por su reputación, que se calcula basándose en las revisiones que recibe. La integración de la revisión por pares en los repositorios promueve la discusión abierta al permitir una colaboración directa, abierta y transparente entre los autores y los revisores, y produce nuevas métricas que reflejan directamente la calidad de un trabajo de investigación percibida por los colegas expertos, al contrario que las métricas actuales disponibles que dan cuenta de la calidad solo de manera indirecta a través de las estadísticas de uso. El sistema de revisión por pares implementado permite que los revisores de un trabajo y los autores del mismo (derecho de réplica) que estén en la base de datos del repositorio pueden hacer comentarios sobre las revisiones del trabajo. Esta es una opción que podría ser ampliada a todos los especialistas en la materia registrados en el repositorio pero sin tenerlos en cuenta en las métricas. El módulo de revisión por pares en abierto ya se ha instalado en dos importantes repositorios españoles (DIGITAL.CSIC, e-IEO) con resultados iniciales prometedores.We present the first open peer review module for open access repositories. The module, designed in this first stage for integration with DSpace repositories, in order to avoid “inbreeding”, enables any scholar to offer a qualitative and quantitative evaluation of any research object hosted in a compliant repository. Weighted reputation metrics are calculated for articles, reviews, authors and reviewers. An advanced search function allows repository users to filter or sort research objects based on their reputation, which it is calculated based on the reviews received. The integration of peer review in repositories promotes open scholarship by enabling a direct, open and transparent collaboration between authors and reviewers, and produces novel metrics directly reflecting the perceived quality of a research work by expert peers, contrary to current available metrics that only indirectly account for quality through usage statistics. Reviewers of the work and the authors of the work (right of reply) at the repository data base can comment on the reviews of that work. This option may be extended to all specialists in the field registered at the repository but without taking them into account in metrics. The open peer review module has already been installed in two major Spanish repositories (DIGITAL.CSIC, e-IEO) with promising initial results.OpenAIR

The Emotional and Attentional Impact of Exposure to One's Own Body in Bulimia Nervosa: A Physiological View

Background: Body dissatisfaction is the most relevant body image disturbance in bulimia nervosa (BN). Research has shown that viewing one's own body evokes negative thoughts and emotions in individuals with BN. However, the psychophysiological mechanisms involved in this negative reaction have not yet been clearly established. Our aim was to examine the emotional and attentional processes that are activated when patients with BN view their own bodies. Method: We examined the effects of viewing a video of one's own body on the physiological (eye-blink startle, cardiac defense, and skin conductance) and subjective (pleasure, arousal, and control ratings) responses elicited by a burst of 110 dB white noise of 500 ms duration. The participants were 30 women with BN and 30 healthy control women. The experimental task consisted of two consecutive and counterbalanced presentations of the auditory stimulus preceded, alternatively, by a video of the participant's own body versus no such video. Results: The results showed that, when viewing their own bodies, women with BN experienced (a) greater inhibition of the startle reflex, (b) greater cardiac acceleration in the first component of the defense reaction, (c) greater skin conductance response, and (d) less subjective pleasure and control combined with greater arousal, compared with the control participants. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that, for women with BN, peripheral-physiological responses to self-images are dominated by attentional processes, which provoke an immobility reaction caused by a dysfunctional negative response to their own body.The present research was supported by grants from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [PSI2009-08417 and PSI2012-31395]. P.P. was supported by grants from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation and University Jaume I [ECO2011-23634, P1-1B2012-27, and JCI-2010-06790]

Genome-Wide Association Study and Functional Characterization Identifies Candidate Genes for Insulin-Stimulated Glucose Uptake

Distinct tissue-specific mechanisms mediate insulin action in fasting and postprandial states. Previous genetic studies have largely focused on insulin resistance in the fasting state, where hepatic insulin action dominates. Here we studied genetic variants influencing insulin levels measured 2 h after a glucose challenge in \u3e55,000 participants from three ancestry groups. We identified ten new loci (P \u3c 5 × 10-8) not previously associated with postchallenge insulin resistance, eight of which were shown to share their genetic architecture with type 2 diabetes in colocalization analyses. We investigated candidate genes at a subset of associated loci in cultured cells and identified nine candidate genes newly implicated in the expression or trafficking of GLUT4, the key glucose transporter in postprandial glucose uptake in muscle and fat. By focusing on postprandial insulin resistance, we highlighted the mechanisms of action at type 2 diabetes loci that are not adequately captured by studies of fasting glycemic traits

A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review [version 2; referees: 2 approved]

Peer review of research articles is a core part of our scholarly communication system. In spite of its importance, the status and purpose of peer review is often contested. What is its role in our modern digital research and communications infrastructure? Does it perform to the high standards with which it is generally regarded? Studies of peer review have shown that it is prone to bias and abuse in numerous dimensions, frequently unreliable, and can fail to detect even fraudulent research. With the advent of web technologies, we are now witnessing a phase of innovation and experimentation in our approaches to peer review. These developments prompted us to examine emerging models of peer review from a range of disciplines and venues, and to ask how they might address some of the issues with our current systems of peer review. We examine the functionality of a range of social Web platforms, and compare these with the traits underlying a viable peer review system: quality control, quantified performance metrics as engagement incentives, and certification and reputation. Ideally, any new systems will demonstrate that they out-perform and reduce the biases of existing models as much as possible. We conclude that there is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages. We also propose a novel hybrid platform model that could, at least partially, resolve many of the socio-technical issues associated with peer review, and potentially disrupt the entire scholarly communication system. Success for any such development relies on reaching a critical threshold of research community engagement with both the process and the platform, and therefore cannot be achieved without a significant change of incentives in research environments

A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review

Peer review of research articles is a core part of our scholarly communication system. In spite of its importance, the status and purpose of peer review is often contested. What is its role in our modern digital research and communications infrastructure? Does it perform to the high standards with which it is generally regarded? Studies of peer review have shown that it is prone to bias and abuse in numerous dimensions, frequently unreliable, and can fail to detect even fraudulent research. With the advent of web technologies, we are now witnessing a phase of innovation and experimentation in our approaches to peer review. These developments prompted us to examine emerging models of peer review from a range of disciplines and venues, and to ask how they might address some of the issues with our current systems of peer review. We examine the functionality of a range of social Web platforms, and compare these with the traits underlying a viable peer review system: quality control, quantified performance metrics as engagement incentives, and certification and reputation. Ideally, any new systems will demonstrate that they out-perform and reduce the biases of existing models as much as possible. We conclude that there is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages. We also propose a novel hybrid platform model that could, at least partially, resolve many of the socio-technical issues associated with peer review, and potentially disrupt the entire scholarly communication system. Success for any such development relies on reaching a critical threshold of research community engagement with both the process and the platform, and therefore cannot be achieved without a significant change of incentives in research environments

Natural selection of academic papers

Academic papers, like genes, code for ideas or technological innovations that structure and transform the scientific organism and consequently the society at large. Genes are subject to the process of natural selection which ensures that only the fittest survive and contribute to the phenotype of the organism. The process of selection of academic papers, however, is far from natural. Commercial for-profit publishing houses have taken control over the evaluation and access to scientific information with serious consequences for the dissemination and advancement of knowledge. Academic authors and librarians are reacting by developing an alternative publishing system based on free-access journals and self-archiving in institutional repositories and global disciplinary libraries. Despite the emergence of such trends, the journal monopoly, rather than the scientific community, is still in control of selecting papers and setting academic standards. Here we propose a dynamical and transparent peer review process, which we believe will accelerate the transition to a fully open and free-for-all science that will allow the natural selection of the fittest ideas

The interface of COVID-19, diabetes, and depression.

Comorbid diabetes with depression is a challenging and often under-recognized clinical problem. During the current COVID-19 pandemic, a communicable disease is thriving on the increasing incidences of these non-communicable diseases. These three different health problems are bidirectionally connected forming a vicious cycle. Firstly, depressed individuals show a higher risk of developing diabetes and patients with diabetes have a higher risk of developing symptoms of depression. Secondly, patients with diabetes have a higher risk of developing severe COVID-19 as well as of experiencing breakthrough infections. Thirdly, in both patients with type 2 diabetes and in COVID-19 survivors the prevalence of depression seems to be increased. Fourthly, lockdown and quarantine measurements during the COVID-19 pandemic has led to an increase in depression. Therefore, it is of importance to increase the awareness of this interface between depression, diabetes and COVID-19. Finally, as symptoms of post-COVID, diabetes and depression may be overlapping, there is a need for educating skilled personnel in the management of these comorbidities

OPRM: Desafíos a la inclusión de la revisión por pares en abierto en los repositorios de acceso abierto

The peer review system is the norm for many publications. It involves an editor and several experts in the field providing comments for a submitted article. The reviewer remains anonymous to the author, with only the editor knowing the reviewer´s identity. This model is now being challenged and open peer review (OPR) models are viewed as the new frontier of the review process. OPR is a term that encompasses diverse variations in the traditional review process. Examples of this are modifications in the way in which authors and reviewers are aware of each other’s identity (open identities), the visibility of the reviews carried out (open reviews) or the opening up of the review to the academic community (open participation). We present the project for the implementation of an Open Peer Review Module in two major Spanish repositories, DIGITAL.CSIC and e-IEO, together with some promising initial results and challenges in the take-up process. The OPR module, designed for integration with DSpace repositories, enables any scholar to provide a qualitative and quantitative evaluation of any research object hosted in these repositories.Versión del edito