Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Peerage of Science
Janne-Tuomas Seppänen, PhD
#crossref14
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
"Provide ships or sails adapted to the heavenly
breezes, and there will be some who will brave
even that void."
@JanneSepp...
Andrzej Mirecki
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
Peer Review!
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
Peer Review!
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
Exclusive submission
Peer Review!
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
Exclusive submission
Exclusive nomination of peers
Peer Review!
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
Exclusive submission
Exclusive nomination of peers
Exclusive use of reviews
S...
Richard Horton
Editor of Lancet
“peer review is biased, unjust,
unaccountable, incomplete, easily
fixed, often insulting, ...
WHY?
- Peer reviewers feel they are doing housework?
- Appointed authority (editor) nominates just two
or three judges
- W...
Peerage of Science
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
Give authors some ownership
Give reviewers some ownership
Let everybody...
Old Henry’s Peerage of Science
Method comparison - duration
unpredictable, long
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
Peerage of Science
Author decides,
enforced
Method comparison - duration
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
20 days...
... 2.5 peer reviews
Peerage of Science
Author decides,
enforced
Method comparison - duration
@JanneSeppanen, @...
Old Henry’s Peerage of Science
Method comparison – who reviews
Editor solicits
reviews
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
Peerage of Science
Editor may solicit
reviews
Method comparison – who reviews
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
Peerage of Science
Editor may solicit
reviews + Peers can
engage freely
Method comparison – who reviews
@JanneSeppanen, @p...
Old Henry’s Peerage of Science
Method comparison – quality control
Editor knows
reviewers
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
Peerage of Science
Editor knows
reviewers
Alfred R. Wallace (arw@evol.my)
Method comparison – who reviews
@JanneSeppanen, ...
Alfred R. Wallace (arw@evol.my)
Peerage of Science
+ peer reviews are
peer-reviewed
Editor knows
reviewers
Method comparis...
Old Henry’s Peerage of Science
Method comparison – submissions
sequential
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
Peerage of Science
first concurrent, then
sequential
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
Peerage of Science
first concurrent, then
sequential
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
Thank you!
Janne-Tuomas Seppänen, PhD
#crossref14
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

2014 CrossRef Annual Meeting Peer Review Panel: Do it once, do it well – questioning submission and peer review traditions

3,664 views

Published on

2014 CrossRef Annual Meeting Peer Review Panel presentation entitled "Do it once, do it well – questioning submission and peer review traditions" by Janne-Tuomas Seppänen of the Peerage of Science.

Is it really in the best interest of journals to insist on exclusive isolated submissions, and exclusive opaque nomination of reviewers, and exclusive usage of those reviews? Publishers are increasingly moving towards re-use of reviews and avoidance of submission iteration via internal cascade models, but a broader liberation of submission and peer review processes leads to many common goods that also directly benefit journals. I will discuss how, and more importantly why, Peerage of Science offers these new approaches for scientists and publishers.

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

2014 CrossRef Annual Meeting Peer Review Panel: Do it once, do it well – questioning submission and peer review traditions

  1. 1. Peerage of Science Janne-Tuomas Seppänen, PhD #crossref14 @JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
  2. 2. "Provide ships or sails adapted to the heavenly breezes, and there will be some who will brave even that void." @JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
  3. 3. Andrzej Mirecki @JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
  4. 4. @JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
  5. 5. @JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
  6. 6. @JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
  7. 7. @JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
  8. 8. Peer Review! @JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
  9. 9. Peer Review! @JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience Exclusive submission
  10. 10. Peer Review! @JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience Exclusive submission Exclusive nomination of peers
  11. 11. Peer Review! @JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience Exclusive submission Exclusive nomination of peers Exclusive use of reviews S T A P S T E M F A I L
  12. 12. Richard Horton Editor of Lancet “peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong” Richard Smith ex-Editor of BMJ “A woeful tale of the uselessness of peer review” “Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals” @JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
  13. 13. WHY? - Peer reviewers feel they are doing housework? - Appointed authority (editor) nominates just two or three judges - What is the consequence of failing as peer reviewer? - What is the consequence of excelling as peer reviewer? @JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
  14. 14. Peerage of Science @JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience Give authors some ownership Give reviewers some ownership Let everybody (incl. Editor) choice on anonymity Judge the peer reviewers, maker it matter to them! Allow concurrent consideration across journals, or… at least share the peer reviews
  15. 15. Old Henry’s Peerage of Science Method comparison - duration unpredictable, long @JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
  16. 16. Peerage of Science Author decides, enforced Method comparison - duration @JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
  17. 17. 20 days... ... 2.5 peer reviews Peerage of Science Author decides, enforced Method comparison - duration @JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
  18. 18. Old Henry’s Peerage of Science Method comparison – who reviews Editor solicits reviews @JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
  19. 19. Peerage of Science Editor may solicit reviews Method comparison – who reviews @JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
  20. 20. Peerage of Science Editor may solicit reviews + Peers can engage freely Method comparison – who reviews @JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
  21. 21. Old Henry’s Peerage of Science Method comparison – quality control Editor knows reviewers @JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
  22. 22. Peerage of Science Editor knows reviewers Alfred R. Wallace (arw@evol.my) Method comparison – who reviews @JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
  23. 23. Alfred R. Wallace (arw@evol.my) Peerage of Science + peer reviews are peer-reviewed Editor knows reviewers Method comparison – who reviews @JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
  24. 24. Old Henry’s Peerage of Science Method comparison – submissions sequential @JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
  25. 25. Peerage of Science first concurrent, then sequential @JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
  26. 26. Peerage of Science first concurrent, then sequential @JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
  27. 27. Thank you! Janne-Tuomas Seppänen, PhD #crossref14 @JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience

×