263 Matching Annotations
  1. Jun 2021
    1. 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.

  2. May 2021
    1. 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.

  3. Apr 2021
    1. 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.

  4. Mar 2021
    1. 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.

  5. Feb 2021
    1. 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.

  6. Jan 2021
    1. 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

    1. 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

  7. Nov 2020
  8. Oct 2020
    1. 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...)

  9. Sep 2020
  10. Aug 2020
  11. Jul 2020
    1. Authors should annotate code before the review occurs because annotations guide the reviewer through the changes

      Guide the reviewer during the review process

    2. It´s also useful to watch internal process metrics, including:

      Inspection rate Defect rate Defect density

    3. 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.

    4. 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

    5. The brain can only effectively process so much information at a time; beyond 400 LOC, the ability to find defects diminishes.

      <400 LOC

  12. Jun 2020
  13. May 2020
  14. Apr 2020
    1. There are good preprints and bad preprints, just like there are with journal articles. Overall, do not be afraid to be scooped or plagiarized! Preprints also actually protect against scooping [21,22]. Preprints establish the priority of discovery as a formally published item. Therefore, a preprint acts as proof of provenance for research ideas, data, code, models, and results—all outputs and discoveries.
      • Salah satu alasan untuk tidak mengunggah preprint adalah takut idenya dicuri,

      • Ini adalah faktor budaya yang lain. Ketakutan yang tidak beralasan. Justru dengan mengunggah preprint, peneliti dapat mengklaim ide lebih awal.

      • Preprint ada yang bagus dan ada yang buruk, peninjauan akan ada di tangan pembaca. Ini adalah hambatan budaya berikutnya, ketika mayoritas pembaca ingin melimpahkan tanggungjawab untuk memverifikasi, memeriksa, dan menjamin kualitas suatu makalah kepada para peninjau.

      • Pengalihan tanggungjawab ini sulit dilakukan ketika dokumen PR sendiri tertutup, dan tidak lepas dari bias.

      • Selain itu, dosen akan menyalahi prinsip yang disebarluaskan kepada para mahasiswa, untuk membaca secara kritis.

    2. One of the reasons is the delay in the peer-review process and the subsequent publication
      • Salah satu kritik terbesar terhadap preprint adalah ketidakadaan peninjauan sejawat (Peer Review/PR).

      • Proses PR ini memang menjadi proses sentral dalam publikasi. Di luar manfaatnya, PR juga dapat merugikan, karena memberikan hambatan waktu.

      • Yang unik ada makalah yang memperlihatkan hasil bahwa banyak makalah versi terpublikasi memiliki isi dan tampilan tidak berbeda dengan versi preprintnya.

    1. Someresearch has shown that preprints tend to be of similar quality to their final published versions in journals
      • Salah satu kritik terbesar terhadap preprint adalah ketidakadaan peninjauan sejawat.

      • Proses PR ini memang menjadi proses sentral dalam publikasi. Di luar manfaatnya, PR juga dapat merugikan, karena memberikan hambatan waktu.

      • Yang unik ada makalah yang memperlihatkan hasil bahwa banyak makalah versi terpublikasi memiliki isi dan tampilan tidak berbeda dengan versi preprintnya.

  15. Feb 2020
    1. Transparent Review in Preprints (TRiP) — that enables journals and peer review services to post peer reviews of submitted manuscripts on CSHL’s preprint server bioRxiv.

      Incredible use of annotation technology in peer review over preprints! Watch this space! I'm lucky that I get to use annotation in my work at the Knowledge Futures Group.

  16. Jan 2020
    1. Interested authors can select In Review when they submit their manuscript through Editorial Manager. Participating will enable them to track the progress of their manuscript through peer review with immediate access to review reports, share their work to engage a wider community through open annotation using Hypothesis, follow a transparent editorial checklist, and gain early collaboration and citation opportunities.

      Annotation in peer review, whether on preprints or through a more traditional manuscript submission system, offers the option for reviewers, editors, and authors to give and received feedback in context. And I'm super excited about this new project.

  17. Dec 2019
    1. Supplementary data

      Of special interest is that a reviewer openly discussed in blog his general thoughts about the state of the art in the field based on what he had been looking at in the paper. This blog came out just after he completed his 1st round review, and before an editorial decision was made.


      This spawned additional blogs that broadened the discussion among the community-- again looking toward the future.<br> See: https://www.homolog.us/blogs/genome/2013/02/23/titus-browns-thoughts-on-the-assemblathon-2-paper/



      Further the authors, now in the process of revising their manuscript, joined in on twitter, reaching out to the community at large for suggestions on revisions, and additional thoughts. Their paper had been posted in arxiv- allowing for this type of commenting and author/reader interaction See: https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5406

      The Assemblathon.org site collected and presented all the information on the discussion surrounding this article. https://assemblathon.org/page/2

      A blog by the editors followed all this describing this ultra-open peer review, highlighting how these forms of discussions during the peer review process ended up being a very forward-looking discussion about the state of based on what the reviewers were seeing in this paper, and the directions the community should now focus on. This broader open discussion and its very positive nature could only happen in an open, transparent, review process. See: https://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2013/07/23/ultra-open-peer-review/