eLife peer review alpsp talk

802 views

Published on

ALPSP Seminar
Talk given at ALPSP Seminar

Beyond the rhetoric:
New opportunities in open access
Tuesday 20 November 2012

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

No Downloads
Views
Total views
802
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
12
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • These are the key features of eLife, and what makes this project unique within research communication
  • These are the key features of eLife, and what makes this project unique within research communication
  • eLife peer review alpsp talk

    1. 1. Peer review in a digitalenvironment Mark Patterson eLife ALPSP Seminar, November 20th, 2012
    2. 2. Open access is just one part of a broader transitionhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/anandham/4499539060/
    3. 3. The goals of peer review • Assess technical merits of Open access is just work • Assess likely significance one part of a of work broader transitionhttp://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-1.1/peer.htm
    4. 4. How does peer review work? The goals of peer review • Assess technical merits of Open access is just work • Assess likely significance one part of a of work broader transitionhttp://www.scienceforseo.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/peerreview.jpg
    5. 5. Open access is justone part of abroader transition
    6. 6. Is peer review The goals of peer broken? review Open access is just one part of a broader transitionhttp://the-political-ear.com/?p=595
    7. 7. Experiments in peer review • Increasing transparency – Non-anonymous – Exposing the process • Broadening participation – Public peer review before publication – Post-publication assessment/metrics • Changing the question – Publish first then filter
    8. 8. Increasing transparency
    9. 9. Open peer review Reviewers are not anonymousReviewers arenot anonymousCompletesubmissionhistory published
    10. 10. Open peer review (2) Reviewers can remain anonymous Cross-referee commenting Complete submission history published
    11. 11. eLife editorial processSwift triage Full submission Peer review Consultation Amongst reviewers before decision Decision letter Consolidate feedback, published Revision Limit rounds of revision decision
    12. 12. Broadening participation
    13. 13. http://www.frontiersin.org/Computational_Neuroscience/10.3389/fncom.2012.00033/full
    14. 14. • Founded 2001 • Publishes ~800 papers per year • 20% papers receive comment from communityhttp://www.frontiersin.org/Computational_Neuroscience/10.3389/fncom.2012.00033/full
    15. 15. “Facilitating sustained and rigorousanalysis of evidence and theory isthe most rigorous form of peerreview.”
    16. 16. AcknowledgmentMartin Fenner, PLOS
    17. 17. AcknowledgmentMartin Fenner, PLOS
    18. 18. PLOS Papers Funded by the Wellcome TrustLocation of the first authors for 1961 articles funded by the Wellcome Trust (blue = MOPs, green = MRC, dark grey = all other).AcknowledgmentMartin Fenner, PLOS
    19. 19. Changing the question
    20. 20. Open-accessmegajournals
    21. 21. PLOS ONE quarterly publications
    22. 22. Open-accessmegajournals
    23. 23. Megajournals during their first year 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 BMJ Open Sci Rep AIP Adv SAGE G3 PLOS ONE Open
    24. 24. Megajournals don’t… • Organize content • Assess impact • Publish opinion/commentary
    25. 25. Megajournals do… • Accelerate research communication • Make publishing cheaper • Drive open access • Challenge traditional journals
    26. 26. Experimentation and diversitywww.flickr.com/photos/keepitsurreal/1884615328/
    27. 27. Questions?Mark Pattersonm.patterson@elifesciences.org

    ×