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.

Jessica Polka - The future of Peer Review | OpenUP Final Conference


Published on

Jessica Polka talking about the future of Peer Review at the OpenUP Final Conference. Jessica Polka is Executive Director of ASAPbio, a researcher-driven non-profit working to promote innovation and transparency in life sciences communication. ASAPbio aims to accelerate cultural change in two areas: preprints and open peer review reports. She became a visiting scholar at the Whitehead Institute and a research affiliate at MIT Libraries following postdoctoral research in synthetic biology at the Harvard Medical School and a PhD in biochemistry and cell biology at the University of California, San Francisco.

A few words about OpenUP Final Conference - Review | Assess | Disseminate
OpenUP Final Conference is the final conference of the EU funded H2020 project OpenUP. In OpenUP Final Conference, key aspects and challenges of the currently transforming science landscape were showcased in different interactive sessions, including an Open Science Cafe and Marketplace for new and innovative tools, methods and ideas. Different Motivate and Meet sessions fostered interaction and exchange in the context of Open Science.

It brought together different stakeholders who have a "stake" in the researcher lifecycle and helped them to learn about innovative methods for peer review, dissemination of research results and impact measurement, and get involved in shaping open science policies meeting their needs.

More information about OpenUP
OpenUP Hub:

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Jessica Polka - The future of Peer Review | OpenUP Final Conference

  1. 1. Illustration by David Parkins The future of peer review Jessica Polka @jessicapolka Executive Director, ASAPbio @ASAPbio_ These slides:
  2. 2. ● Published ● Early (preprint feedback) ● Recognized ● Transparent policies What does the future of peer review look like?
  3. 3. Peer review is worth publishing “Paper Shredder” by Sh4rp_i is licensed under CC BY 2.0
  4. 4. Why publish (anonymous) peer reviews? ● Encourages constructive reviewer behavior ● Peer review is scholarship ● Earns the trust of readers ● Makes journal decisions more transparent ● Opens a door for reviewer recognition ● Helps trainees ● Enables the study of peer review #PublishPeerReview View article
  5. 5. Researchers like the idea of publishing peer review Ross-Hellauer 2017
  6. 6. What are the barriers?
  7. 7. Reviewers will pull their punches Reviewers won’t want to review Authors won’t want to submit #PublishPeerReview
  8. 8. “Weaponization” #PublishPeerReview
  9. 9. Addressing weaponization 1. Disclaimer on peer reviews? 2. Lay summary? 3. Interacting with journalists, etc #PublishPeerReview
  10. 10. Amplification of bias link ♀ ♂ ♀ ♂ ♀ ♂ Corresponding First Last Gender of author %offullsubmissionsaccepted #PublishPeerReview
  11. 11. #PublishPeerReview
  12. 12. View article
  13. 13. Open letter on the publication of peer review reports Letter We, the undersigned journals, recognise the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable or undertake to enable the publication of all of the content of peer review, but not necessarily the names of reviewers (this is also called open peer review reports) and author responses alongside final, published articles. We recognize that implementations of published peer review reports may vary—with some journals mandating it for all published articles, while others may offer authors an opt-in or opt-out option—providing an opportunity to compare experiments across different journal policies and fields. In the pursuit of best practices, we commit to sharing information about community responses to varied implementations. We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system. #PublishPeerReview
  14. 14. 127 signatories, including some that commit to publishing peer review in the future Journal(s) Publisher Contact Expected implementation date PLOS Biology PLOS Veronique Kiermer Q2 2019 PLOS Computational Biology PLOS Veronique Kiermer Q2 2019 PLOS Genetics PLOS Veronique Kiermer Q2 2019 PLOS Medicine PLOS Veronique Kiermer Q2 2019 PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases PLOS Veronique Kiermer Q2 2019 PLOS ONE PLOS Veronique Kiermer Q2 2019 PLOS Pathogens PLOS Veronique Kiermer Q2 2019 Journal of Cell Biology Rockefeller University Press Rebecca Alvania & Jodi Nunnari Late 2018 Proceedings of the Royal Society B Royal Society Spencer Barrett Early 2019 Development Company of Biologists Claire Moulton Early 2019 Journal of Cell Science Company of Biologists Claire Moulton Early 2019 4open EDP Sciences Claus Roll Early 2019 #PublishPeerReview
  15. 15. Early
  16. 16. / The power of early peer review #ASAPbio
  17. 17. Preprint feedback can inform journal decisions “In addition, the journal reserves the right--but is not obligated--to consider the comments made to manuscripts posted to preprint servers and factor these comments into final decisions at any stage of the peer review process.” #ASAPbio
  18. 18. Preprint servers as a marketplace for editors #ASAPbio
  19. 19. Preprint servers as a marketplace for editors “we now have a dedicated team of editors who will focus on identifying [preprints] that are potentially suitable for publication in PLOS Genetics.” * * Bringing PLOS Genetics Editors to Preprint Servers Gregory S. Barsh, Casey M. Bergman, Christopher D. Brown, Nadia D. Singh, Gregory P. Copenhaver Published: December 1, 2016 #ASAPbio
  20. 20. Preprint commenting venues JMIR Preprints Publons F1000Prime F1000Research and funder-controlled platforms SciRate Episciences Copernicus Interactive Public Peer Review Mendeley Peeriodicals PubPeer preLights PREreview APPRAISE Peer Community In... Academic Karma Peerage of Science biOverlay ScienceOpen Self-Journal of Science Hypothesis More details in this spreadsheet #ASAPbio
  21. 21. Recognized
  22. 22. Recognizing ghost peer reviewers How many “individual” peer reviewers actually represent a hidden number of ECRs carrying out peer review with and for them? #ECRPeerReview
  23. 23. eLife peer review survey eLife survey “264 researchers took part in the survey, including 146 postdoctoral researchers (55% of the total), 61 group leaders (23%) and 51 PhD students (19%)” “although 37% of PhD students still performed their review without the assistance of their advisor.” #ECRPeerReview
  24. 24. Help us learn more about peer review ghostwriting - survey open until September 21: #ECRPeerReview
  25. 25. Transparent policies
  26. 26.
  27. 27. Thank you! ASAPbio Board of Directors Ron Vale (President) Cynthia Wolberger (Vice President) James Fraser (Secretary & Treasurer) Prachee Avasthi Daniel Colón-Ramos Tony Hyman Heather Joseph Harlan Krumholz Harold Varmus Dick Wilder (non-voting) Future of Research Gary McDowell, Becki Lijek, & BoD 2018 ASAPbio meeting coorganizers Robert Kiley (Wellcome) Bodo Stern & Boyana Konforti (HHMI) ASAPbio Funders Simons, Sloan, Arnold, Moore, Helmsley, Wellcome, CZI, HHMI, MRC, CIHR