19 Matching Annotations
  1. Oct 2018
  2. Mar 2018
  3. Jun 2017
    1. protected platform whereby many expert reviewers could read and comment on submissions, as well as on fellow reviewers’ comments

      Conduct prepeer review during the manuscript development on a web platform. That is what is happening in Therapoid.net.

    2. intelligent crowd reviewing

      Crowdsourcing review? Prepeer review as precursor to preprint server.

  4. Mar 2017
    1. Eve Marder, a neurobiologist at Brandeis University and a deputy editor at eLife, says that around one third of reviewers under her purview sign their reviews.

      Perhaps these could routinely become page notes?

    2. If Kriegeskorte is invited by a journal to write a review, first he decides whether he’s interested enough to review it. If so, he checks whether there’s a preprint available—basically a final draft of the manuscript posted publicly online on one of several preprint servers like arxiv and biorxiv. This is crucial. Writing about a manuscript that he’s received in confidence from a journal editor would break confidentiality—talking about a paper before the authors are ready. If there’s a preprint, great. He reviews the paper, posts to his blog, and also sends the review to the journal editor.

      Interesting workflow and within his rights.

    3. The tweet linked to the blog of a neuroscientist named Niko Kriegeskorte, a cognitive neuroscientist at the Medical Research Council in the UK who, since December 2015, has performed all of his peer review openly.

      Interesting...

  5. Jan 2017
  6. Oct 2016
  7. Feb 2016
    1. As I have mentioned in previous posts, several platforms have appeared recently that could take on this role of third-party reviewer. I could imagine at least: libreapp.org, peerevaluation.org, pubpeer.com, and publons.com. Pandelis Perakakis mentioned several others as well: http://thomas.arildsen.org/2013/08/01/open-review-of-scientific-literature/comment-page-1/#comment-9.
  8. Jan 2016
    1. Below I list a few advantages and drawbacks of anonymity where I assume that a drawback of anonymous review is an advantage of identified review and vice versa. Drawbacks Reviewers do not get credit for their work. They cannot, for example, reference particular reviews in their CVs as they can with publications. It is relatively “easy” for a reviewer to provide unnecessarily blunt or harsh critique. It is difficult to guess if the reviewer has any conflict of interest with the authors by being, for example, a competing researcher interested in stalling the paper’s publication. Advantages Reviewers do not have to fear “payback” for an unfavourable review that is perceived as unfair by the authors of the work. Some (perhaps especially “high-profile” senior faculty members) reviewers might find it difficult to find the time to provide as thorough a review as they would ideally like to, yet would still like to contribute and can perhaps provide valuable experienced insight. They can do so without putting their reputation on the line.
    1. With most journals, if I submit a paper that is rejected, that information is private and I can re-submit elsewhere. In open review, with a negative review one can publicly lose face as well as lose the possibility of re-submitting the paper. Won’t this be a significant disincentive to submit? This is precisely what we are trying to change. Currently, scientists can submit a paper numerous times, receive numerous negative reviews and ultimately publish their paper somewhere else after having “passed” peer review. If scientists prefer this system then science is in a dangerous place. By choosing this model, we as scientists are basically saying we prefer nice neat stories that no one will criticize. This is silly though because science, more often than not, is not neat and perfect. The Winnower believes that transparency in publishing is of the utmost importance. Going from a closed anonymous system to an open system will be hard for many scientists but I believe that it is the right thing to do if we care about the truth.
    2. PLOS Labs is working on establishing structured reviews and we have talked with them about this.
    3. It should be noted that papers will always be open for review so that a paper can accumulate reviews throughout its lifetime.
  9. Dec 2015
    1. We believe that openness and transparency are core values of science. For a long time, technological obstacles existed preventing transparency from being the norm. With the advent of the internet, however, these obstacles have largely disappeared. The promise of open research can finally be realized, but this will require a cultural change in science. The power to create that change lies in the peer-review process.

      We suggest that beginning January 1, 2017, reviewers make open practices a pre-condition for more comprehensive review. This is already in reviewers’ power; to drive the change, all that is needed is for reviewers to collectively agree that the time for change has come.

  10. May 2015
    1. Author and peer reviewer anonymity haven’t been shown to have an overall benefit, and they may cause harm. Part of the potential for harm is if journals act as though it’s a sufficiently effective mechanism to prevent bias.
    2. Peer reviewers were more likely to substantiate the points they made (9, 14, 16, 17) when they knew they would be named. They were especially likely to provide extra substantiation if they were recommending an article be rejected, and they knew their report would be published if the article was accepted anyway (9, 15).