The topic of this year’s Peer Review Week is transparency in review – we are joining in the celebrations with a series of posts on this topic and on peer review more generally, beginning with a look at the critical importance of peer review as a mechanism of discernment and scrutiny in a world of “alternative facts”.
In anticipation of Peer Review Week, we’ve asked the Chefs their opinions on if and how peer review might change. Come tell us yours!
What constitutes peer review of a data set?
There is sufficient supply of reviewers to meet demand, a new paper suggests. It’s just not evenly distributed.
Next up in our series of posts celebrating Peer Review Week 2016 is a conversation about peer review in the humanities and social sciences. Chefs Alison Mudditt and Karin Wulf, together with Mary Francis of the University of Michigan Press, discuss the differences and similarities between peer review in HSS and STEM disciplines, and between reviews for books and journals in HSS.
As we celebrate Peer Review Week, this post summarizes some of the reviewer preferences along with ways to boost recognition for peer review activities. #PeerRevWk16
Looking forward to Peer Review Week, we asked the Chefs “What is the future of peer review?” #PeerRevWk16
Stop thinking of peer review as a concept and start thinking of it as a toolbox.
The publication experience of authors may come down to a single factor: was the manuscript accepted?
Offering researchers credit for performing peer review seems, on the surface, like a good idea. But implementing such a scheme raises some problematic questions.
When sexist comments make it into a technical review of a research article, journal editors and publishers are wise to take a moment and think about processes for finding, responding to, and eradicating this behavior.
Publishers often slap labels on activities that are complex, expensive, and high-value. Worse, we often accept people calling these activities “value-add” when they are core functions of how scientific information shared.
Narrowing the definition of peer review to only validation standards, we may be exposing peer review in its least flattering light, while ignoring the more reliable and powerful ways in which peer review serves science.
There’s much more to making “post-publication peer-review” work, much less a valid form of peer-review. Rebranding comments and letters isn’t sufficient. Maybe it’s time to recognize over-reach.
Do the benefits of peer review outweigh the work involved? How does post-publication review stack up in comparison?