Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Innovation in peer review
Innovation in peer review
Innovation in peer review
Innovation in peer review
Innovation in peer review
Innovation in peer review
Innovation in peer review
Innovation in peer review
Innovation in peer review
Innovation in peer review
Innovation in peer review
Innovation in peer review
Innovation in peer review
Innovation in peer review
Innovation in peer review
Innovation in peer review
Innovation in peer review
Innovation in peer review
Innovation in peer review
Innovation in peer review
Innovation in peer review
Innovation in peer review
Innovation in peer review
Innovation in peer review
Innovation in peer review
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Innovation in peer review

2,913

Published on

0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,913
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
9
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
36
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Maria Kowalczuk, PhD Deputy Biology Editor, BioMed Central Innovation in Peer Review http://www.meta-activism.org/2011/05/fixing-peer-review-freeing-knowledge-creation/
  • 2. Traditional peer review • Peer review in the current form has been used since 1960s. • Traditionally scientific journals use single blind peer review or double blind peer review models. • Online publishing and open access have changed the publishing landscape while peer review process has remained the same.
  • 3. Pitfalls of traditional peer review • Slow • Expensive to manage • Inconsistent • Bias • Favouritism • Abuse http://www.eusci.org.uk/articles/exploring-scientific-peer-review
  • 4. Innovative peer review models • Open peer review • Minimal re-review • Portable peer review • Technical peer review • Decoupled peer review • Post publication peer review http://www.bishop- hill.net/blog/2011/3/20/peer-review-not-for- the-short-sighted-josh-87.html
  • 5. Open (non-anonymous) peer review Randomised Controlled Trial (BMJ 1999; 318: 23 – 27): - no effect on report quality, recommendation, or time taken to review - increased likelihood of reviewers declining to review
  • 6. Biology Direct PubMed record
  • 7. Publishing peer review documents - In all 4 EMBO publications, including EMBO J, EMBO Reports -‘Peer Review Process File’ shows all referee reports , author responses and editorial decision letters - Referees remain anonymous; opt-out is possible - 95% of take-up rate; willingness of referees to review unchanged
  • 8. Authors can opt out of re-review; if the editors judge the revisions sufficient, the article is published, often accompanied by a critical Commentary. Discussed in Editorial: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/11/18. Re-review opt-out – BMC Biology
  • 9. Portable peer review Flagships Subject-specific journals BMC Research Notes BMC series BMC Neuroscience BMC Public Health BMC Independent Journals
  • 10. Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium
  • 11. Technical peer review
  • 12. Post publication peer review via comments • PubMed Commons • PubPeer.com • Research Gate • Frontiers • BioMed Central and other publishers
  • 13. Conclusions  Peer review is under scrutiny  Developments in peer review include:  Open peer review  Minimizing re-review  Portable peer review  Technical peer review  Peer review decoupled from journal  Post publication peer review
  • 14. Thank you! Maria Kowalczuk, PhD Deputy Biology Editor, BioMed Central Maria.Kowalczuk@biomedcentral.com Any questions?

×