• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
The changing scholarly communications landscape: what does this mean for peer review?
 

The changing scholarly communications landscape: what does this mean for peer review?

on

  • 1,885 views

Sense About Science held a workshop on peer review in collaboration with the Research Information Network, Vitae, Elsevier and the Voice of Young Science. ...

Sense About Science held a workshop on peer review in collaboration with the Research Information Network, Vitae, Elsevier and the Voice of Young Science.

This afternoon event was held at the University of Sussex, Brighton on 5 March 2010 and was free and for early career researchers in all sciences, engineering and medicine (PhD students, post-docs or equivalent in first job).

The workshop discussed the process of peer review in journal publishing and explored the criticisms of the peer review process. What does peer review do for science? Does it detect fraud and misconduct? Will it illuminate good ideas or shut them down?

The RIN’s Liason and Partnerships Officer, Branwen Hide, spoke at the event on ‘The changing scholarly communications landscape: What does this mean for peer review?’

For more information on the programme, visit http://www.rin.ac.uk/news/events/research-publishing-it-reviewing-it-and-talking-about-it-publicly

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,885
Views on SlideShare
1,881
Embed Views
4

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
15
Comments
0

1 Embed 4

http://www.slideshare.net 4

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    The changing scholarly communications landscape: what does this mean for peer review? The changing scholarly communications landscape: what does this mean for peer review? Presentation Transcript

    • The changing scholarly communications landscape What does this mean for peer review? Sense about Science Workshop Branwen Hide March 5th, 2010
    • Outline Traditional journal publishing and the cost of peer-review Changing scholarly communications landscape Social media The emergence of data as a publication Some food for thought
    • Traditional journal publishing and the cost of peer review
    • UK Journal Article Publication and Distribution Costs 450.0 424.9 400.0 350.0 300.0 £ Millions 250.0 200.0 150.0 125.1 119.0 100.0 63.7 63.0 54.1 50.0 0.0 Non-cash peer Direct fixed Variable cost Indirect cost Surplus Total cost review cost First copy cost £244.1 Publication Distribution Activities, costs and funding flows in the scholarly communications system, RIN, May 2008
    • The changing scholarly communications landscape Move to electronic and open access publishing Author-pays, pre-prints, post-prints Increase use of social media for dissemination and access of information Blogs, twitter, YouTube etc. Publishers are also thinking of new and innovative ways of adding value to their publications Publishing research data, linking to existing data bases, and enhanced annotations Comment, moderate, and rating systems Peer review Difficult to get people to respond
    • New forms of peer review – some examples PLosOne 2-stage assessment Handling editor is acknowledged PLoSCurrents Influenza Expert panel screens submissions It is expected that the information with be ‘officially’ published at a later date arXiv Combination of moderators and endorsements EMBO Publish the ‘Review Process File’ Reviewers remain anonymous BMC Medicine Publish the pre-publication history Reviewers are not anonymous F1000 This is not a journal it is a “literature awareness tool” experts in the field evaluate and comment on the most interesting papers they read each month – review peer reviewed journal articles
    • Social Media Blogs valid because a number of people follow them? link to peer-reviewed literature? researchbloging.org Is there a role for the institution? Wikipedia, WikiGenes actively encourages people to edit and improve the quality of the post WikiGenes requires you to cite where you have got that information from when you post it Twitter The problem of retweeting and only having 140 characters
    • The emergence of data as a publication There is a move toward the publication of research data Either as a supplement to an existing article, as an independent publication, or archiving it in a database Currently data that is archived is generally not subjected to peer review The data creator is responsible for ensuring the quality of data Personal knowledge of how the data were collected and analyzed greatly influences one trust in the data This can be increased with good quality metadata that describe the origins and how the data was processed Currently there are a number of discussion on the need/feasibility of formal peer review for data
    • Some food for thought Does discipline have an affect on the type of peer review? Does the type of publication influence the type of peer review? Why don’t commenting and rating systems work more effectively? Is a new system of peer review required for blogs and other social media? Can data be peer reviewed the same way as a journal article? How do we asses the quality of metadata? Are their training implications for researchers? How will the changes in the peer review process affect the public understanding (trust) of science?
    • Branwen Hide Liaison and Partnership Officer Research Information Network Branwen.hide@rin.ac.uk www.rin.ac.uk
    • UK Costs of Scholarly Communications 10.00 9.00 8.61 8.00 7.00 6.23 6.00 £ Billions 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.34 1.00 0.43 0.54 0.07 0.00 Research Publishing & Access User search Reading total production Distribution provision and print cost Research Publication & Access Usage & Consumption Production distribution