Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Academic Publishing is Evolving…Peer Review @Pete BinfieldCo-Founder and PublisherPeerJ@ThePeerJhttps://peerj.com@p_binfie...
Academic Publishing is Evolving…The Shortcomings of the Peer Review Process- The peer review process is usually used to an...
Academic Publishing is Evolving…PeerJ PrePrints- A preprint server for the biological and medical sciences- Preprint conte...
Academic Publishing is Evolving…The Reviewer’s Experience…- Pre-publication reviews are formally invited- Encouraged to pr...
Academic Publishing is Evolving…The Author’s Experience…- Do not have to contort or distort their article to demonstratein...
Academic Publishing is Evolving…The Commenter’s Experience…- Comments are framed as ‘feedback’- Feedback is currently only...
https://peerj.com/articles/19/
https://peerj.com/articles/19/
https://peerj.com/macknik/
https://peerj.com/about/FAQ/academic-contribution/
https://peerj.com/articles/19/
https://peerj.com/reviews/48/
https://peerj.com/MathewWedel/
https://peerj.com/preprints/
https://peerj.com/preprints/8/
Academic Publishing is Evolving…The Shortcomings of the Peer Review Process- The peer review process is usually used to an...
Academic Publishing is Evolving…The Shortcomings of the Peer Review Process- The peer review process is usually used to an...
Academic Publishing is Evolving…Thank YouPete BinfieldCo-Founder and Publisher@p_binfieldpete@peerj.com@ThePeerJhttps://pe...
Peer Review at PeerJ - a Presentation to the Council of Science Editors (CSE)
Peer Review at PeerJ - a Presentation to the Council of Science Editors (CSE)
Peer Review at PeerJ - a Presentation to the Council of Science Editors (CSE)
Peer Review at PeerJ - a Presentation to the Council of Science Editors (CSE)
Peer Review at PeerJ - a Presentation to the Council of Science Editors (CSE)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Peer Review at PeerJ - a Presentation to the Council of Science Editors (CSE)

775

Published on

Peer Review at PeerJ - slides and audio from the PeerJ segment of a Council of Science Editors (CSE) Webinar May 28th 2013

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
775
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
7
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Peer Review at PeerJ - a Presentation to the Council of Science Editors (CSE)"

  1. 1. Academic Publishing is Evolving…Peer Review @Pete BinfieldCo-Founder and PublisherPeerJ@ThePeerJhttps://peerj.com@p_binfieldpete@peerj.com
  2. 2. Academic Publishing is Evolving…The Shortcomings of the Peer Review Process- The peer review process is usually used to answer 2unrelated questions: validity and interest.- The decision of 2 anonymous reviewers determines the fate,and possible reception, of an article- The words and thoughts of reviewers are ‘lost’ to the ether- Authors are unable to demonstrate the work and thought thatwent into responding to reviewer comments- Reviewers get no (tangible) reward- Reviewers get no (attribution) credit- There is little incentive to submit a review in a timely manner- There is little incentive to take on a review in the 1stplace- Unrealistic expectations are placed on pre-publication peerreview to validate a publication and ‘catch all the errors’.
  3. 3. Academic Publishing is Evolving…PeerJ PrePrints- A preprint server for the biological and medical sciences- Preprint content is NOT peer reviewed- Includes versioning functionality- Engagement and commenting is linked to reputation metrics- Provides DOIs, is archived, is indexedPeerJ- A broad based journal in the biological and medical sciences,judging submissions based only on technical and scientific validity- Fully peer reviewed, with rapid review process handled by a (very)large editorial board of 800, including 5 Nobel Laureates- Is made up of ‘born digital’ functionality- Operates an optional ‘open peer review’ process- Engagement and commenting is linked to reputation metrics- Full suite of Article Level Metrics- Provides DOIs, is archived, is indexed
  4. 4. Academic Publishing is Evolving…The Reviewer’s Experience…- Pre-publication reviews are formally invited- Encouraged to provide their name to the authors- Must declare any conflicts of interest- Asked to comment only on scientific validity (in 3 categories of‘Basic Reporting’, ‘Experimental Design’ and ‘Validity of theFindings’)- Dissuaded from making ‘Confidential Comments to Editor’- Choose from 4 Recommendations (Accept, Minor Revisions, MajorRevisions, Reject)- Receive a BCC of all decision letters- User profiles are tied to Contribution credits- Gain a tangible reward for providing on time reviews- Receive notifications when the article is publishedNote: Reviewers / authors / commenters all use a ‘single sign on’
  5. 5. Academic Publishing is Evolving…The Author’s Experience…- Do not have to contort or distort their article to demonstrateintangibles such as ‘novelty’, ‘broad interest’ or ‘high impact’- Have the potential to see the names of their reviewers- Are given the option to reproduce their peer review ‘audit trail’on the published article- Can recognize and reward insightful Feedback- Accrue ‘alt-metrics’ from day of publication- Are incentivized to participate in the peer review process
  6. 6. Academic Publishing is Evolving…The Commenter’s Experience…- Comments are framed as ‘feedback’- Feedback is currently only available on PeerJ PrePrints- No anonymous or pseudonymous commenting allowed- User profiles are tied to Contribution creditsThe Reader’s Experience…- Able to view the peer review process ‘in the raw’- Can access ‘alt-metrics’ to help them form their own opinionson any article- Can provide Feedback and Comments and gain recognitionfor doing so
  7. 7. https://peerj.com/articles/19/
  8. 8. https://peerj.com/articles/19/
  9. 9. https://peerj.com/macknik/
  10. 10. https://peerj.com/about/FAQ/academic-contribution/
  11. 11. https://peerj.com/articles/19/
  12. 12. https://peerj.com/reviews/48/
  13. 13. https://peerj.com/MathewWedel/
  14. 14. https://peerj.com/preprints/
  15. 15. https://peerj.com/preprints/8/
  16. 16. Academic Publishing is Evolving…The Shortcomings of the Peer Review Process- The peer review process is usually used to answer 2unrelated questions: validity and interest.- The decision of 2 anonymous reviewers determines the fate,and possible reception, of an article- The words and thoughts of the reviewers are ‘lost’ to theether- Authors are unable to demonstrate the work and thought thatwent into responding to reviewer comments- Reviewers get no (tangible) reward- Reviewers get no (attribution) credit- There is little incentive to submit a review in a timely manner- There is little incentive to take on a review in the 1stplace- Unrealistic expectations are placed on pre-publication peerreview to validate a publication and ‘catch all the errors’.
  17. 17. Academic Publishing is Evolving…The Shortcomings of the Peer Review Process- The peer review process is usually used to answer 2unrelated questions: validity and interest.- The decision of 2 anonymous reviewers determines the fate,and possible reception, of an article- The words and thoughts of the reviewers are ‘lost’ to theether- Authors are unable to demonstrate the work and thought thatwent into responding to reviewer comments- Reviewers get no (tangible) reward- Reviewers get no (attribution) credit- There is little incentive to submit a review in a timely manner- There is little incentive to take on a review in the 1stplace- Unrealistic expectations are placed on pre-publication peerreview to validate a publication and ‘catch all the errors’.Objective Review CriteriaObjective Review Criteria + Alt MetricsOpen Peer ReviewOpen Peer ReviewFree Membership for on-time reviewsContribution CreditFree Membership for on-time reviewsUn Peer-Reviewed PrePrints +Open Peer Review +Post Publication Feedback
  18. 18. Academic Publishing is Evolving…Thank YouPete BinfieldCo-Founder and Publisher@p_binfieldpete@peerj.com@ThePeerJhttps://peerj.com

×