Would an AI-driven peer review system improve objectivity? Cathy O’Neil, author of Weapons of Math Destruction explains the biases and subjectivity inherent in algorithms.
Many column inches – right here in the Scholarly Kitchen as well as elsewhere – have been expended on the megajournal and its successes and (perhaps more often), failures. But how might megajournals support the very real need for action to improve the transparency, reproducibility and efficiency of scientific research?
Input from more than a dozen consultants portrays an industry struggling to adapt to a dramatically different and rapidly changing information economy.
Illegitimate – or predatory – journals are on the increase. What’s more, authors from high-, middle-, and low-income countries are now known to be publishing in them. Find out why this is the case and how we can work as a community to help stop their spread, in this interview with Kelly Cobey and Larissa Shamseer of Centre for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, to coincide with their new paper on the topic in Nature Human Behavior.
Open data is gaining ground, but is there a revenue stream that would help journals recover the costs of gathering, reviewing and publishing data?
Information manipulation is not new, yet everything is different. How do governments, preprints, algorithms, and our own responsibilities intersect? Where does peer review come in now?
Earlier this year, an American Geophysical Union analysis of peer review in its journals revealed evidence of gender bias, with women being less likely to be invited to review than men despite being more likely to be the first author of an accepted paper. In this interview, Brooks Hanson (Senior Vice President, Publications) and former Data Analyst, Jory Lerback describe the original study and the AGU’s efforts to address this bias.
Journal editors are more likely to reject papers when they experience trouble recruiting reviewers, reports a new study.
Citations and the metrics around their use are an important part of evaluation and promotion of science and scientists and yet, little attention is paid to them in the peer review process. In this post, Angela Cochran makes a call to critically review reference lists and develop standards around what should and should not be included.
After several pivots and failures, it may be time to finally say goodbye to portable peer review.
New detailed assessments of journals in the Global South will provide reassurance to authors and readers and guide editors on how to improve their journals.
Sara Rouhi from Altmetric reflects on the biases of the “research industrial complex”.
To round out Peer Review Week 2017, here’s a brief summary of some key takeaways from this year’s Peer Review Congress, held every four years.
Continuing our Peer Review Week celebrations, we asked representatives from three very different organizations – the American Historical Association, BioMed Central and The Royal Society – to share their thoughts on the evolution of peer review for journals from its beginnings through the present and into the future.
What kind of peer review is developing to evaluate long-form digital scholarship? A view from AAUP press editors.