- Jan 2024
-
peculiargenres.commons.msu.edu peculiargenres.commons.msu.edu
- Mar 2023
-
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com
-
German academic publishing in Niklas Luhmann's day was dramatically different from the late 20th/early 21st centuries. There was no peer-review and as a result Luhmann didn't have the level of gatekeeping that academics face today which only served to help increase his academic journal publication record. (28:30)
-
- Jul 2022
-
www.wikiwand.com www.wikiwand.com
-
Perhaps the most widely recognized failing of peer review is its inability to ensure the identification of high-quality work.
stakesinscience
-
- May 2022
-
Local file Local file
-
Studying, done properly, is research,because it is about gaining insight that cannot be anticipated and willbe shared within the scientific community under public scrutiny.
-
-
wiobyrne.com wiobyrne.com
-
or at least they pretend
I don't think we're pretending. I know I'm not!
-
Senior colleagues indicate that I should not have to balance out publishing in “traditional, peer-reviewed publications” as well as open, online spaces.
Do your colleagues who read your work, annotate it, and comment on it not count as peer-review?
Am I wasting my time by annotating all of this? :) (I don't think so...)
-
-
notes.knowledgefutures.org notes.knowledgefutures.org
-
He notes that authors of such projects should consider the return on investment. It take time to go through community feedback, so one needs to determine whether the pay off will be worthwhile. Nevertheless, if his next work is suitable for community review, he’d like to do it again.
This is an apropos question. It is also somewhat contingent on what sort of platform the author "owns" to be able to do outreach and drive readers and participation.
-
A short text "interview" with the authors of three works that posted versions of their books online for an open review via annotation.
These could be added to the example and experience of Kathleen Fitzpatrick.
-
-
danallosso.substack.com danallosso.substack.com
-
I returned to another OER Learning Circle and wrote an ebook version of a Modern World History textbook. As I wrote this, I tested it out on my students. I taught them to use the annotation app, Hypothesis, and assigned them to highlight and comment on the chapters each week in preparation for class discussions. This had the dual benefits of engaging them with the content, and also indicating to me which parts of the text were working well and which needed improvement. Since I wasn't telling them what they had to highlight and respond to, I was able to see what elements caught students attention and interest. And possibly more important, I was able to "mind the gaps', and rework parts that were too confusing or too boring to get the attention I thought they deserved.
This is an intriguing off-label use case for Hypothes.is which is within the realm of peer-review use cases.
Dan is essentially using the idea of annotation as engagement within a textbook as a means of proactively improving it. He's mentioned it before in Hypothes.is Social (and Private) Annotation.
Because one can actively see the gaps without readers necessarily being aware of their "review", this may be a far better method than asking for active reviews of materials.
Reviewers are probably not as likely to actively mark sections they don't find engaging. Has anyone done research on this space for better improving texts? Certainly annotation provides a means for helping to do this.
-
-
journals.plos.org journals.plos.org
-
However, the degraded performance across all groups at 6 weeks suggests that continued engagement with memorised information is required for long-term retention of the information. Thus, students and instructors should exercise caution before employing any of the measured techniques in the hopes of obtaining a ‘silver bullet’ for quick acquisition and effortless recall of important data. Any system of memorization will likely require continued practice and revision in order to be effective.
Abysmally sad that this is presented without the context of any of the work over the last century and a half of spaced repetition.
I wonder that this point slipped past the reviewers and isn't at least discussed somewhat narratively here.
-
- Apr 2022
-
asapbio.org asapbio.org
-
Considering campaigns to post journal reviews on preprints. (n.d.). ASAPbio. Retrieved April 29, 2022, from https://asapbio.org/considering-campaigns-to-post-journal-reviews-on-preprints
-
- Mar 2022
-
www.the-scientist.com www.the-scientist.com
-
Mullins, M. (2021, November 1). Opinion: The Problem with Preprints. The Scientist Magazine®. https://www.the-scientist.com/critic-at-large/opinion-the-problem-with-preprints-69309
-
- Feb 2022
-
wblau.medium.com wblau.medium.com
-
Blau, W. (2022, February 14). Climate Change: Journalism’s Greatest Challenge. Medium. https://wblau.medium.com/climate-change-journalisms-greatest-challenge-2bb59bfb38b8
-
-
www.cbc.ca www.cbc.ca
-
News ·, A. M. · C. (2022, January 15). Canadian COVID-19 vaccine study seized on by anti-vaxxers—Highlighting dangers of early research in pandemic | CBC News. CBC. https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/covid-19-vaccine-study-omicron-anti-vaxxers-1.6315890
-
-
twitter.com twitter.com
-
Peter R. Hansen. (2022, February 3). Weighting, is the answer. The only study to find lockdowns ⬆️mortality is given weight 91.8% = 7390/8030, and then you get -0.2% to be the estimate. To summarize: -0.2% META-STUDY ESTIMATE is based on 91.8% ONE STUDY and 8.2% ALL OTHER STUDIES. https://t.co/j6e7ziPNAI [Tweet]. @ProfPHansen. https://twitter.com/ProfPHansen/status/1489366528956919808
-
-
twitter.com twitter.com
-
Kimberly Prather, Ph.D. (2022, January 11). This paper is not published..not reviewed...and has serious problems that will hopefully be fixed during the review process. The lead authors know this. See posts by me @linseymarr @jljcolorado . [Tweet]. @kprather88. https://twitter.com/kprather88/status/1481019341625724928
-
-
twitter.com twitter.com
-
AAI. (2022, January 29). More than seventy peer-reviewed #COVID-19, #SARS, and #MERS @J_Immunol articles are #FreeToRead http://ow.ly/lwTr50Hyu5F #immunology #ReadTheJI https://t.co/7Hi4g8ZySp [Tweet]. @ImmunologyAAI. https://twitter.com/ImmunologyAAI/status/1487425781647216646
-
- Dec 2021
-
www.nature.com www.nature.com
-
Replicating scientific results is tough—But essential. (2021). Nature, 600(7889), 359–360. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-03736-4
-
-
twitter.com twitter.com
-
AIMOS. (2021, November 30). How can we connect #metascience to established #science fields? Find out at this afternoon’s session at #aimos2021 Remco Heesen @fallonmody Felipe Romeo will discuss. Come join us. #OpenScience #OpenData #reproducibility https://t.co/dEW2MkGNpx [Tweet]. @aimos_inc. https://twitter.com/aimos_inc/status/1465485732206850054
-
- Nov 2021
-
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
-
I have no problem with publishers making a profit, or with peer reviewers doing their work for free. The problem I have is when there is such an enormous gap between those two positions.
If publishers make billions in profit (and they do), while at the same time reviewers are doing a billion dollars worth of work for free, that seems like a broken system.
I think there are parallels with how users contribute value to social media companies. In both cases, users/reviewers are getting some value in return, but most of the value that's captured goes to the publisher/tech company.
I'd like to see a system where more of the value accrues to the reviewers. This could be in the form of direct payment, although this is probably less preferable because of the challenges of trying to convert the value of different kinds of peer review into a dollar amount.
Another problem with simply paying reviewers is that it retains the status quo; we keep the same system with all of it's faults and redistribute profits. This is an OK option as it at least sees some of the value that normally accrues to publishers moving to reviewers.
I also don’t believe that open access - in it’s current form - is a good option either. There are still enormous costs associated with publishing; the only difference is that those costs are now covered by institutions instead of the reader. The publisher still makes a heart-stopping profit.
A more elegant solution, although more challenging, would be for academics to step away from publishers altogether and start their own journals, on their own terms.
-
-
twitter.com twitter.com
-
COVID-19 Living Evidence. (2021, November 12). As of 12.11.2021, we have indexed 257,633 publications: 18,674 pre-prints 238,959 peer-reviewed publications Pre-prints: BioRxiv, MedRxiv Peer-reviewed: PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO https://t.co/ytOhLG90Pi [Tweet]. @evidencelive. https://twitter.com/evidencelive/status/1459163720450519042
-
- Oct 2021
-
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
-
Reuters. (2021, October 6). Sweden, Denmark pause Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for younger age groups. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/sweden-pauses-use-moderna-covid-vaccine-cites-rare-side-effects-2021-10-06/
Tags
- stop
- younger
- health agency
- peer review
- side effect
- vaccination
- Denmark
- Sweden
- risk
- lang:en
- vaccine
- report
- COVID-19
- Moderna
- is:news
- rare
Annotators
URL
-
-
graphics.reuters.com graphics.reuters.com
-
Sharma, M., Scarr, S., & Kell, K. (n.d.). Speed Science. Reuters. Retrieved August 19, 2021, from https://graphics.reuters.com/CHINA-HEALTH-RESEARCH/0100B5ES3MG/index.html
-
- Aug 2021
-
docmaps.knowledgefutures.org docmaps.knowledgefutures.org
-
coronacentral.ai coronacentral.ai
-
CoronaCentral. (n.d.). Retrieved 11 August 2021, from https://coronacentral.ai/
Tags
Annotators
URL
-
-
www.nature.com www.nature.com
-
McIntyre, L. (2021). Talking to science deniers and sceptics is not hopeless. Nature, 596(7871), 165–165. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02152-y
-
- Jul 2021
-
www.reddit.com www.reddit.com
-
u/dawnlxh. (2021). Reviewing peer review: does the process need to change, and how?. r/BehSciAsk. Reddit
-
-
-
Antonoyiannakis, M. (2021). Does Publicity in the Science Press Drive Citations? ArXiv:2104.13939 [Physics]. http://arxiv.org/abs/2104.13939
-
-
twitter.com twitter.com
-
Health Nerd on Twitter. (2020). Twitter. Retrieved 26 February 2021, from https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1327872397794439168
-
-
www.journals.uchicago.edu www.journals.uchicago.edu
-
Heesen, R., & Bright, L. K. (2020). Is Peer Review a Good Idea? The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 000–000. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axz029
-
-
-
Tulleken, C. van. (2021). Covid-19: Sputnik vaccine rockets, thanks to Lancet boost. BMJ, 373, n1108. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1108
-
-
twitter.com twitter.com
-
Nicola Low #EveryDayCounts #StillFBPE on Twitter. (2020). Twitter. Retrieved 27 February 2021, from https://twitter.com/nicolamlow/status/1336958661151821825
-
-
twitter.com twitter.com
-
ReconfigBehSci on Twitter. (2020). Twitter. Retrieved 27 February 2021, from https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1339855911796543488
-
-
psyarxiv.com psyarxiv.com
-
Yesilada, M., Holford, D. L., Wulf, M., Hahn, U., Lewandowsky, S., Herzog, S., Radosevic, M., Stuchlý, E., Taylor, K., Ye, S., Saxena, G., & El-Halaby, G. (2021). Who, What, Where: Tracking the development of COVID-19 related PsyArXiv preprints. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/evmgs
-
- Jun 2021
-
www.nature.com www.nature.com
-
Soderberg, C. K., Errington, T. M., Schiavone, S. R., Bottesini, J., Thorn, F. S., Vazire, S., Esterling, K. M., & Nosek, B. A. (2021). Initial evidence of research quality of registered reports compared with the standard publishing model. Nature Human Behaviour, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01142-4
-
-
www.mdpi.com www.mdpi.com
-
Sallam, M. (2021). COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Worldwide: A Concise Systematic Review of Vaccine Acceptance Rates. Vaccines, 9(2), 160. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9020160
-
-
iannotate.org iannotate.org
-
recently published book
I was honored to interview Remi and Antero (along with other MITP authors) about collaborative community review and how it fit with their traditional peer review experience. The blog post can be found here.
Tags
Annotators
URL
-
-
www.jclinepi.com www.jclinepi.com
-
Calster, B. V., Wynants, L., Riley, R. D., Smeden, M. van, & Collins, G. S. (2021). Methodology over metrics: Current scientific standards are a disservice to patients and society. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.018
-
-
scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org
-
Publisher costs usually include copyediting/formatting and organizing peer review. While these content transformations are fundamental and beneficial, they alone cannot justify the typical APC (Article Publication Charge), especially since peer reviewers are not paid.
But peer reviewers are largely responsible for generating the assertions you talk about in the next paragraph, and which apparently, justify the cost of publishing.
-
- May 2021
-
-
Trovò, B., & Massari, N. (2021). Ants-Review: A Protocol for Incentivized Open Peer-Reviews on Ethereum. ArXiv:2101.09378 [Cs]. http://arxiv.org/abs/2101.09378
-
- Apr 2021
-
psyarxiv.com psyarxiv.com
-
Pleskac, T. J., Kyung, E., Chapman, G. B., & Urminsky, O. (2021, April 23). Single- or double-blind review? A field study of system preference, reliability, bias, and validity. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/q2tkw
-
-
-
Die weitestgehende Öffnung liegt bei dieser Variante vor, wenn sowohl Autor*innen- wie auch Gutachter*innen- und Gutachtentransparenz besteht. Offene Review-Verfahren schließen ferner die Option einer nachträglichen Veröffentlichung der Gutachten als Begleittexte einer Publikation mit ein
Volle Transparenz wäre m.E. erst dann gegeben, wenn auch abgelehente Einreichungen mitsamt der der Gutachten, die zur Ablehnung geführt haben ins Netz gestellt werden. Mir scheint, um Meinungs- oder Zitationskartelle zu verhindern (oder zumindest offensichtlich werden zu lassen), wäre das sogar wichtiger als die Namen der Gutachter anzugeben.
Tags
Annotators
URL
-
- Mar 2021
-
www.cam.ac.uk www.cam.ac.uk
-
Machine learning models for diagnosing COVID-19 are not yet suitable for clinical use. (2021, March 15). University of Cambridge. https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/machine-learning-models-for-diagnosing-covid-19-are-not-yet-suitable-for-clinical-use
-
-
-
Mambrini, A., Baronchelli, A., Starnini, M., Marinazzo, D., & De Domenico, M. (2020). PRINCIPIA: A Decentralized Peer-Review Ecosystem. ArXiv:2008.09011 [Nlin, Physics:Physics]. http://arxiv.org/abs/2008.09011
-
-
deevybee.blogspot.com deevybee.blogspot.com
-
Deevybee. (2020, December 6). BishopBlog: Faux peer-reviewed journals: a threat to research integrity. BishopBlog. http://deevybee.blogspot.com/2020/12/faux-peer-reviewed-journals-threat-to.html
-
-
twitter.com twitter.com
-
ReconfigBehSci. (2020, November 9). final speaker in our ‘Open science and crisis knowledge management’ session: Michele Starnini on radically redesigning the peer review system #scibeh2020 https://t.co/Gsr66BRGcJ [Tweet]. @SciBeh. https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1325734449783443461
-
-
www.collabovid.org www.collabovid.org
-
Collabovid. (n.d.). Retrieved 6 March 2021, from https://www.collabovid.org/
-
-
www.principia.network www.principia.network
-
PRINCIPIA - Decentralized peer review. (n.d.). Retrieved 5 March 2021, from http://www.principia.network/
-
-
aimos.community aimos.community
-
Conference Details. (n.d.). AIMOS. Retrieved 5 March 2021, from https://aimos.community/2020-details
-
-
redteammarket.com redteammarket.com
-
Market, R. T. (n.d.). Build trust through criticism. Red Team Market. Retrieved 4 March 2021, from https://redteammarket.com/
-
-
twitter.com twitter.com
-
ReconfigBehSci on Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved 1 March 2021, from https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1354456391772229632
-
- Feb 2021
-
twitter.com twitter.com
-
Dr Elaine Toomey on Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved 24 February 2021, from https://twitter.com/ElaineToomey1/status/1357343820417933316
-
-
www.stm-assoc.org www.stm-assoc.org
-
The Rights Retention Strategy provides a challenge to the vital income that is necessary to fund the resources, time, and effort to provide not only the many checks, corrections, and editorial inputs required but also the management and support of a rigorous peer review process
This is an untested statement and does not take into account the perspectives of those contributing to the publishers' revenue. The Rights Retention Strategy (RRS) relies on the author's accepted manuscript (AAM) and for an AAM to exist and to have the added value from peer-review a Version of Record (VoR) must exist. Libraries recognise this fundamental principle and continue to subscribe to individual journals of merit and support lucrative deals with publishers. From some (not all) librarians' and possibly funders' perspectives these statements could undermine any mutual respect.
-
- Jan 2021
-
twitter.com twitter.com
-
ReconfigBehSci [@SciBeh] (2020-01-27) new post on Scibeh's meta-science reddit describing the new rubric for peer review of preprints aimed at broadening the pool of potential 'reviewers' so that students could provide evaluations as well! https://reddit.com/r/BehSciMeta/comments/l64y1l/reviewing_peer_review_does_the_process_need_to/ please take a look and provide feedback! Twitter. Retrieved from: https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1354456393877749763
-
-
arxiv.org arxiv.org
-
Mambrini. A. Baronchelli. A. Starnini. M. Marinazzo. D. De Domenico, M. (2020) .PRINCIPIA: a Decentralized Peer-Review Ecosystem. Retrieved from: chrome-extension://bjfhmglciegochdpefhhlphglcehbmek/pdfjs/web/viewer.html?file=https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F2008.09011.pdf
-
- Nov 2020
-
-
Soderberg, C. K., Errington, T., Schiavone, S. R., Bottesini, J. G., Thorn, F. S., Vazire, S., Esterling, K. M., & Nosek, B. A. (2020). Research Quality of Registered Reports Compared to the Traditional Publishing Model. MetaArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/7x9vy
-
- Oct 2020
-
twitter.com twitter.com
-
Health Nerd on Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved October 17, 2020, from https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1316511734115385344
-
- Sep 2020
-
twitter.com twitter.com
-
Daniël Lakens on Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved September 23, 2020, from https://twitter.com/lakens/status/1308115862247952386
-
-
twitter.com twitter.com
-
Max Primbs on Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved September 14, 2020, from https://twitter.com/MaxPrimbs/status/1304516869509066760
-
-
outbreaksci.prereview.org outbreaksci.prereview.org
-
Outbreak Science Rapid PREreview • Dashboard. (n.d.). Retrieved September 11, 2020, from https://outbreaksci.prereview.org/dashboard?q=COVID-19&q=Coronavirus&q=SARS-CoV-2
-
-
rapidreviewscovid19.mitpress.mit.edu rapidreviewscovid19.mitpress.mit.edu
-
Rapid Reviews COVID-19. (n.d.). Rapid Reviews COVID-19. Retrieved September 11, 2020, from https://rapidreviewscovid19.mitpress.mit.edu/
-
-
retractionwatch.com retractionwatch.com
-
Marcus, A. A. (2020, September 8). COVID-19 arrived on a meteorite, claims Elsevier book chapter. Retraction Watch. https://retractionwatch.com/2020/09/08/covid-19-arrived-on-a-meteorite-claims-elsevier-book-chapter/
-
-
www.reddit.com www.reddit.com
-
r/BehSciMeta - Comment by u/dawnlxh on ”A completely re-imagined approach to peer review and publishing: PRINCIPIA”. (n.d.). Reddit. Retrieved September 10, 2020, from https://www.reddit.com/r/BehSciMeta/comments/if03sk/a_completely_reimagined_approach_to_peer_review/g4nnuc5
-
-
www.reddit.com www.reddit.com
-
r/BehSciMeta—No appeasement of bad faith actors. (n.d.). Reddit. Retrieved June 2, 2020, from https://www.reddit.com/r/BehSciMeta/comments/gv0y99/no_appeasement_of_bad_faith_actors/
-
-
www.nature.com www.nature.com
-
Clements, J. C. (2020). Don’t be a prig in peer review. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02512-0
-
- Aug 2020
-
openreview.net openreview.net
-
About | OpenReview. (n.d.). Retrieved May 30, 2020, from https://openreview.net/about
-
-
sci-hub.tw sci-hub.tw
-
Schalkwyk, M. C. I. van, Hird, T. R., Maani, N., Petticrew, M., & Gilmore, A. B. (2020). The perils of preprints. BMJ, 370. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3111. https://t.co/qNPLYCeT99?amp=1
-
-
www.biorxiv.org www.biorxiv.org
-
Besançon, L., Peiffer-Smadja, N., Segalas, C., Jiang, H., Masuzzo, P., Smout, C., Deforet, M., & Leyrat, C. (2020). Open Science Saves Lives: Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic. BioRxiv, 2020.08.13.249847. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.13.249847
-
-
twitter.com twitter.com
-
Michael Eisen on Twitter: “A core problem in science publishing today is that we have a system where the complex, multidimensional assessment of the rigor, validity, utility, audience and impact of a work that emerges from peer review gets reduced to a single overvalued ‘accept/reject’ decision.” / Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved August 10, 2020, from https://twitter.com/mbeisen/status/1291752487448276992
-
-
twitter.com twitter.com
-
Esther Choo, MD MPH on Twitter: “Question for Twitter. Why didn’t academia take the lead on Covid information? Why didn’t schools of med & public health across the US band together, put forth their experienced scientists in epidemiology, virology, emergency & critical care, pandemic and disaster response...” / Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved August 10, 2020, from https://twitter.com/choo_ek/status/1291789978716868608
-
-
ropensci.org ropensci.org
-
‘OSF: A Project Management Service Built for Research - ROpenSci - Open Tools for Open Science’. Accessed 10 August 2020. https://ropensci.org/blog/2020/08/04/osf/.
-
-
www.fastcompany.com www.fastcompany.com
-
Taraborelli, D., Taraborelli, D., & Taraborelli, D. (2020, August 5). How the COVID-19 crisis has prompted a revolution in scientific publishing. Fast Company. https://www.fastcompany.com/90537072/how-the-covid-19-crisis-has-prompted-a-revolution-in-scientific-publishing
-
-
-
Hoekstra, R., & Vazire, S. (2020, July 29). Hoekstra & Vazire (2020), Intellectual humility is central to science. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/edh2s
-
- Jul 2020
-
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
-
Eisen, M. B., & Tibshirani, R. (2020, July 20). Opinion | How to Identify Flawed Research Before It Becomes Dangerous. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/20/opinion/coronavirus-preprints.html
-
-
twitter.com twitter.com
-
Dan Quintana on Twitter: “Tomorrow at 1pm CEST I’ll be doing a virtual talk for the Rotterdam R.I.O.T. Science Club (@rdam_riots) on using Twitter for science 🧬 I’ll be covering both the why and the how + I’ll be leaving plenty of time for a Q&A session. Watch here: https://t.co/nXHry9Inyi https://t.co/T6u7lvgAhO” / Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved June 17, 2020, from https://twitter.com/dsquintana/status/1264623289814659072
-
-
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com
-
COVID-19, preprints, and the information ecosystem. (n.d.). Retrieved June 17, 2020, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWi4Q5rZiO0
-
-
medium.com medium.com
-
Brock. J. (2020). Rapid Registered Reports initiative aims to stop coronavirus researchers following false leads. Nature index
-
-
featuredcontent.psychonomic.org featuredcontent.psychonomic.org
-
Yesilada. M. (2020). From peer review to “science without the drag” via PsyArXiv. Psychonomic Society.
-
-
www.sciencedirect.com www.sciencedirect.com
-
Clark, J., Glasziou, P., Mar, C. D., Bannach-Brown, A., Stehlik, P., & Scott, A. M. (2020). A full systematic review was completed in 2 weeks using automation tools: A case study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 121, 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.01.008
-
-
statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu
-
Andrew (2020, June 11) bla bla bla PEER REVIEW bla bla bla.. Retrieved from https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/06/11/bla-bla-bla-peer-review-bla-bla-bla/
-
-
-
Which of these best practices is your team already doing regularly?
Peer Review Practices
-
-
smartbear.com smartbear.com
-
Authors should annotate code before the review occurs because annotations guide the reviewer through the changes
Guide the reviewer during the review process
-
It´s also useful to watch internal process metrics, including:
Inspection rate Defect rate Defect density
-
Before implementing a process, your team should decide how you will measure the effectiveness of peer review and name a few tangible goals.
Set few tangible goals. Fix more bugs is not a good example.
-
Code reviews in reasonable quantity, at a slower pace for a limited amount of time results in the most effective code review.
Only less than 500 LOC per hour
-
The brain can only effectively process so much information at a time; beyond 400 LOC, the ability to find defects diminishes.
<400 LOC
-
-
www.youtube.com www.youtube.comYouTube1
-
Dr Daniel Quintana | Using Twitter for Science | R.I.O.T. Science Club—YouTube. (2020, May 26). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA5Y4cO934I
-
- Jun 2020
-
www.the100.ci www.the100.ci
-
Mis-allocated scrutiny. (2020, June 24). The 100% CI. http://www.the100.ci/2020/06/24/mis-allocated-scrutiny/
-
-
doi.org doi.org
-
Horbach, S. P. J. M. (2020). Pandemic Publishing: Medical journals drastically speed up their publication process for Covid-19. BioRxiv, 2020.04.18.045963. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.18.045963
-
-
-
Peer review should be an honest, but collegial, conversation. (2020). Nature, 582(7812), 314–314. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01622-z
-
-
oaspa.org oaspa.org
-
Scholarly publishers are working together to maximize efficiency during COVID-19 pandemic. (2020, April 27). OASPA. https://oaspa.org/scholarly-publishers-working-together-during-covid-19-pandemic/
-
-
featuredcontent.psychonomic.org featuredcontent.psychonomic.org
-
Lindsay, D. S. (2020, May 29). Enhancing Peer Review of Scientific Reports. Psychonomic Society Featured Content. https://featuredcontent.psychonomic.org/enhancing-peer-review-of-scientific-reports/
-
-
featuredcontent.psychonomic.org featuredcontent.psychonomic.org
-
Holcombe, A. (2020, May 25). As new venues for peer review flower, will journals catch up? Psychonomic Society Featured Content. https://featuredcontent.psychonomic.org/as-new-venues-for-peer-review-flower-will-journals-catch-up/
-
-
www.cnbc.com www.cnbc.com
-
Farr, C. (2020, May 23). Why scientists are changing their minds and disagreeing during the coronavirus pandemic. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/23/why-scientists-change-their-mind-and-disagree.html
-
-
-
Knöchelmann, M. (2020, February 25) Open Humanities: Why Open Science in the Humanities is not Enough. Impact of Social Sciences. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/02/25/open-humanities-why-open-science-in-the-humanities-is-not-enough/
Tags
- lang:en
- is:blog
- science
- peer review
- scholarship
- social challenge
- research
- technology
- cooperation
- open humanities
- open science
- unity
Annotators
URL
-
-
www.nature.com www.nature.com
-
Science in the time of COVID-19. Nat Hum Behav 4, 327–328 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0879-9
-
-
twitter.com twitter.com
-
richard horton on Twitter: “David Spiegelhalter said this morning, ‘Peer review has just disappeared from scientific analysis.’ This is complete and utter nonsense. Our editors across 19 Lancet journals do nothing else but peer review. We intensively review all COVID-19 research papers. You know this David.” / Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved June 5, 2020, from https://twitter.com/richardhorton1/status/1263020292932358145
-
-
-
Heathers, J. (2020, May 21). Preprints Aren’t The Problem—WE Are The Problem. Medium. https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/preprints-arent-the-problem-we-are-the-problem-75d29a317625
-
-
twitter.com twitter.com
-
Daniël Lakens on Twitter
-
-
featuredcontent.psychonomic.org featuredcontent.psychonomic.org
-
Lewandowsky, S. (2020, June 1). A tale of two island nations: Lessons for crisis knowledge management. Psychonomic Society Featured Content. https://featuredcontent.psychonomic.org/a-tale-of-two-island-nations-lessons-for-crisis-knowledge-management/
-