Peer Review at PeerJ - a Presentation to the Council of Science Editors (CSE)
•
1 like•1,382 views
The document discusses how academic publishing and peer review is evolving, highlighting some shortcomings of traditional peer review. It describes how PeerJ is addressing these issues through open peer review, objective review criteria focused on scientific validity rather than novelty or interest, attribution and credit for reviewers, and allowing feedback on pre-publication preprints. This provides incentives for timely and high quality reviews while making the review process and discussion more transparent.
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Peer Review at PeerJ - a Presentation to the Council of Science Editors (CSE)
Similar to Peer Review at PeerJ - a Presentation to the Council of Science Editors (CSE) (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Peer Review at PeerJ - a Presentation to the Council of Science Editors (CSE)
- 1. Academic Publishing is Evolving… Peer Review @ Pete Binfield Co-Founder and Publisher PeerJ @ThePeerJ https://peerj.com @p_binfield pete@peerj.com
- 2. Academic Publishing is Evolving… The Shortcomings of the Peer Review Process - The peer review process is usually used to answer 2 unrelated 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 that went 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 1st place - Unrealistic expectations are placed on pre-publication peer review to validate a publication and ‘catch all the errors’.
- 5. 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is Evolving… PeerJ PrePrints - A preprint server for the biological and medical sciences - Preprint content is NOT peer reviewed - Includes versioning functionality - Engagement and commenting is linked to reputation metrics - Provides DOIs, is archived, is indexed PeerJ - A broad based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
- 6. 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 the Findings’) - Dissuaded from making ‘Confidential Comments to Editor’ - Choose from 4 Recommendations (Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, 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 published Note: Reviewers / authors / commenters all use a ‘single sign on’
- 7. Academic Publishing is Evolving… The Author’s Experience… - Do not have to contort or distort their article to demonstrate intangibles 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
- 8. 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 credits The Reader’s Experience… - Able to view the peer review process ‘in the raw’ - Can access ‘alt-metrics’ to help them form their own opinions on any article - Can provide Feedback and Comments and gain recognition for doing so
- 21. Academic Publishing is Evolving… The Shortcomings of the Peer Review Process - The peer review process is usually used to answer 2 unrelated 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 the ether - Authors are unable to demonstrate the work and thought that went 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 1st place - Unrealistic expectations are placed on pre-publication peer review to validate a publication and ‘catch all the errors’.
- 22. Academic Publishing is Evolving… The Shortcomings of the Peer Review Process - The peer review process is usually used to answer 2 unrelated 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 the ether - Authors are unable to demonstrate the work and thought that went 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 1st place - Unrealistic expectations are placed on pre-publication peer review to validate a publication and ‘catch all the errors’. Objective Review Criteria Objective Review Criteria + Alt Metrics Open Peer Review Open Peer Review Free Membership for on-time reviews Contribution Credit Free Membership for on-time reviews Un Peer-Reviewed PrePrints + Open Peer Review + Post Publication Feedback
- 23. Academic Publishing is Evolving… Thank You Pete Binfield Co-Founder and Publisher @p_binfield pete@peerj.com @ThePeerJ https://peerj.com