Download as PDF, PPTX
![4/75
Peer Review
“[I]t has been said that democracy is the
worst form of Government except for all
those other forms that have been tried from
time to time.…”
—Churchill by Himself, p.574
Like democracy, like peer review…](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/reviewingprocessesandtoolssplitted-240926130015-3296217d/75/Reviewing-Processes-and-Tools-Publishers-Open-Access-4-2048.jpg)
![65/75
New Open Access Model
Before 2024
– “ACM charged production fees to conference
organizers (as described here), but no
publication fees were charged to individual
authors. Papers were not [openly accessible].”
After 2024
– “[N]o production fees or optional open access
fees will be charged [and all articles will be
openly accessible]. [A]uthors will be required to
pay an article processing charge (APC).”
https://www.acm.org/publications/icps/faq](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/reviewingprocessesandtoolssplitted-240926130015-3296217d/75/Reviewing-Processes-and-Tools-Publishers-Open-Access-65-2048.jpg)
Uploaded byYann-Gaël Guéhéneuc
Reviewing Processes and Tools, Publishers, Open Access
The document discusses the peer review process in academic publishing, highlighting its significance in maintaining research quality and integrity. It outlines different types of blind peer review and the various processes involved in journal and conference submissions. Additionally, it addresses the roles of publishers, potential conflicts of interest, and recent developments in open access models.
More Related Content
Similar to Reviewing Processes and Tools, Publishers, Open Access
![Peer Review Guide Final March10[1]](https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/peer-review-guide-final-march101-100311153130-phpapp02-thumbnail.jpg?width=640&height=640&fit=bounds)
Reviewing Processes and Tools, Publishers, Open Access
- 1. Yann-Gaël Guéhéneuc (/jan/, he/il) Worklicensed under Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 International Reviewing Processes and Tools yann-gael.gueheneuc@concordia.ca Version 1.0 2024/09/20
- 2. 2/75 Peer Review Cornerstoneof the Scientific Method Quality and integrity of the research Self-monitoring
- 3. 3/75 Peer Review Discussionsare necessary to peer review
- 4. 4/75 Peer Review “[I]thas been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…” —Churchill by Himself, p.574 Like democracy, like peer review…
- 5. 5/75 Peer Review Threetypes of “blindness” – Single – Double – Triple * Not always
- 6. 6/75 Peer Review Threetypes of “blindness” – Single – Double – Triple Authors Reviewers Editors ↓ Know → Triple-blind: No Others: Yes Always Always Editors Single-blind: Yes Others: No Conferences: Yes Journals: No* Always Reviewers Γνῶθι σεαυτόν Never Triple-blind: No* Others: Yes Authors * Not always
- 7. 7/75 Peer Review Threetypes of “blindness” – Single – Double – Triple Authors Reviewers Editors ↓ Know → Triple-blind: No Others: Yes Always Always Editors Single-blind: Yes Others: No Conferences: Yes Journals: No* Always Reviewers Γνῶθι σεαυτόν Never Triple-blind: No* Others: Yes Authors Difficult to build on one’s work, etc. * Not always
- 8. 8/75 Peer Review Twomain processes – Journals – Conferences • Including workshops • With some variations
- 9. 9/75 Peer Review Twomain processes – Journals – Conferences • Including workshops • With some variations
- 10. 10/75 Peer Review Twomain processes – Journals – Conferences • Including workshops • With some variations
- 11. 11/75 Peer Review Twomain processes – Journals – Conferences • Including workshops • With some variations
- 12. 12/75 Peer Review Twomain processes – Journals – Conferences • Including workshops • With some variations
- 13.
- 14.
- 15.
- 16.
- 17.
- 18.
- 19.
- 20. 20/75 Invitation Re manuscript: JSSOFTWARE-D-24-XXXXX. Title:XXX Authors: XXX. Dear XXX, The above paper has been submitted to The Journal of Systems & Software. I hope it will be of interest to you and that you will be able to accept this invitation to review it for us. Regarding the time frame: If you agree to review, if possible, the journal would very much appreciate receiving your report. We usually ask that you complete your review within 30 days of accepting the invitation. The Abstract is appended below. Please check the Conflict of Interest Guidelines before agreeing to review: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-systems-and-software/policies/conflict-of-interest- guidelines-for-reviewers You should treat this invitation, the manuscript and your review (as well as other reviewer comments shared with you) as confidential. You must not share your review or information about the review process with anyone without the agreement of the editors and authors involved, irrespective of the publication outcome. If the manuscript is rejected by this journal and the author agrees that the submission be transferred to another Elsevier journal via the Article Transfer Service, we may securely transfer your reviewer comments and name/contact details to the receiving journal editor for their peer review purposes. If you are willing to review this manuscript, please click on the link below: Agree to Review If you are unable, please click on the link below. We would be grateful if you could suggest alternative reviewers with the relevant expertise: Decline to Review Alternatively, you may register your response by accessing the Editorial Manager for The Journal of Systems & Software as a REVIEWER using the login credentials below: https://www.editorialmanager.com/jssoftware/ Your username is: XXX If you need to retrieve password details, please go to: click here to reset your password Refereeing is an important and recognised part of being an active member of the scientific community and is greatly appreciated by the Editorial Board. To show our deep appreciation to your hard work as a reviewer, your review will be recorded in the Reviewer Recognition platform (https://www.reviewerrecognition.elsevier.com/). The platform provides participating reviewers with a personalized profile page wherein their peer review history is documented and acknowledged. Upon submission of your review report to the system, you will get access to your personalized Elsevier reviews profile page as well as the possibility of creating a public page
- 21.
- 22.
- 23.
- 24.
- 25.
- 26.
- 27.
- 28. 28/75 EditorialManager Constructive comments go here Honest,rude? comments go here
- 29. 29/75 EditorialManager Constructive comments go here Honest,rude? comments go here No room for discussions
- 30. 30/75 Discussions Advantages – Moretime – More discussions Limitations – No discussions among reviewers – Limited discussions with the authors Limited discussions with the editors
- 31.
- 32.
- 33.
- 34. 34/75 Process, e.g., ICPC Confidence andscore Room for discussions
- 35.
- 36. 36/75 Process, e.g., ICSE Moderation ofthe reviews
- 37. 37/75 Process, e.g., ICSE Moderation ofthe reviews Extra Reviews
- 38. 38/75 Process, e.g., ICSE Moderation ofthe reviews Extra Reviews Rebuttals
- 39. 39/75 Process, e.g., ICSE Moderation ofthe reviews Extra Reviews Rebuttals Area Chairs
- 40.
- 41.
- 42. 42/75 Process, e.g., ICSOC Earlyand normal submissions
- 43.
- 44. 44/75 Invitation Dear, We hope thisemail finds you well. We are pleased to invite you to serve on the Program Committee (PC) of the 33rd edition of the International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC 2025) to be held in Ottawa, Canada, in April 2025 (co-located with ICSE). If you accept this invitation: You will be assigned 3-4 papers to review during the reviewing period between November 10, 204 - December 18, 2024. we expect you to write detailed, balanced, and informative reviews for all the papers assigned to you, we expect you to contribute to the online discussion of the papers assigned to you in a timely fashion. We will also assign each PC member as a discussion lead on one or more papers. Reviewers are expected to fully consider the authors' responses after the rebuttal time and be prepared to adjust their initial review accordingly. The timeline is as follows: Abstract deadline: November 06, 2024 AoE Paper bidding: November 07-09, 2024 AoE Paper deadline: November 09, 2024 AoE Meta-review deadline: January 10, 2025 AoE Final notification sent to authors: January 12, 2025 AoE Camera-ready deadline: February 05, 2025 AoE ... Meta-review deadline: January 10, 2025 AoE Final notification sent to authors: January 12, 2025 AoE Camera-ready deadline: February 05, 2025 AoE Please confirm your decision by ***August 16, 2024 AoE*** by completing the form in the link below or by sending us an email in case you cannot complete the form: https://forms.gle/MTukfybwjuoWBg1w9 We sincerely hope you will accept this invitation, and look forward to working with you for a successful ICPC 2025. Thank you for considering this invitation! Kind regards, Gema Rodriguez-Perez and Coen de Roover ICPC 2025 Program Co-chairs
- 45.
- 46.
- 47.
- 48.
- 49.
- 50.
- 51.
- 52.
- 53. 53/75 Processes Program co-chairs,area chairs, reviewers are at the core of the processes – Professors – Students – Other colleagues Absolutely not paid! Conflict of interests
- 54. 54/75 Publishers Journal articles/conferencepapers are published in journals/proceedings – ACM Press – Elsevier – IEEE CS Press – Springer – Wiley – And many more… • https://beallslist.net/
- 55. 55/75 Publishers Journal articles/conferencepapers are published in journals/proceedings – ACM Press – Elsevier – IEEE CS Press – Springer – Wiley – And many more… • https://beallslist.net/ Beware of (truly…) predatory publishers
- 56. 56/75 Publishers Roles? – Forexample, “ACM provides independent, nonpartisan, and technology-neutral research and resources to policy leaders, stakeholders, and the public…” – Support conferences – Organise journals – Check plagiarisms – Enforce processes – Police authors https://www.acm.org/publications
- 57. 57/75 Publishers Do notpay authors, reviewers, and editors Charge authors Article Processing Charges Charge universities/public fees to access the published papers https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science
- 58. 58/75 Publishers Do notpay authors, reviewers, and editors Charge authors Article Processing Charges Charge universities/public fees to access the published papers https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science Paid by the “public”
- 59. 59/75 Publishers Where doesthe money go?
- 60.
- 61. 61/75 Publishers https://ieeeannualreport.org/2023/introduction/ Sill ask reviewersto register to conferences!
- 62. 62/75 Publishers https://ieeeannualreport.org/2023/introduction/ Sill ask reviewersto register to conferences! Loosing money?
- 63. 63/75 Publishers https://ieeeannualreport.org/2023/introduction/ Sill ask reviewersto register to conferences! Loosing money? Who benefits from this money?
- 64. 64/75 Unsubscribing German Rectors' ConferenceProjekt DEAL – All German academic institutions • Universities • Research institutes • Libraries – Timeline with Elsevier • 2016: Negotiations started • 2017: No renewals • 2018: Negotiations stopped • 2023: Agreement reached Results – Open access agreements • Elsevier • Springer Nature • Wiley – Cost model based on the number of published articles • E.g., €2,750 for publications in hybrid Wiley journals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_DEAL#Publish_and_read_model
- 65. 65/75 New Open AccessModel Before 2024 – “ACM charged production fees to conference organizers (as described here), but no publication fees were charged to individual authors. Papers were not [openly accessible].” After 2024 – “[N]o production fees or optional open access fees will be charged [and all articles will be openly accessible]. [A]uthors will be required to pay an article processing charge (APC).” https://www.acm.org/publications/icps/faq
- 66. 66/75 New Open AccessModel True (and only) reason – “ACM’s response to government mandates requiring open publication of the results of taxpayer-supported research.” Advantages – “Tiering is based on the average annual number of research articles published with ACM over the most recent three-year period.” Disadvantages – “Direct” to authors, esp. those publishing a lot https://libraries.acm.org/subscriptions-access/acmopen#model
- 67. 67/75 New Open AccessModel https://libraries.acm.org/acmopen/open-participants
- 68. 68/75 New Open AccessModel https://libraries.acm.org/acmopen/open-participants Communications Security Establishment National Research Council York University
- 69.
- 70. 70/75 Antitrust Litigation 1. Pricefixing of peer review services at zero – Coercion by expressly linking unpaid labor with ability to published in defendants’ journals 2. Non-competition among publishers – Manuscripts must be submitted to exactly one journal – No incentives to review promptly and publish meritorious research quickly 3. Withholding of scientific advancements – While manuscripts are under peer review – Appropriation of others’ intellectual property
- 71. 71/75 Antitrust Litigation 1. Pricefixing of peer review services at zero – Coercion by expressly linking unpaid labor with ability to published in defendants’ journals 2. Non-competition among publishers – Manuscripts must be submitted to exactly one journal – No incentives to review promptly and publish meritorious research quickly 3. Withholding of scientific advancements – While manuscripts are under peer review – Appropriation of others’ intellectual property I never saw that
- 72.
- 73. 73/75 Conclusion Roles ofpublishers? – Historically important – Now irremovable? – Now all predatory? Publish or perish Quality vs. Quantity Policies
- 74.
- 75. 75/75 Image Credits https://hilstlab.org/ https://dl.acm.org/doi/proceedings/10.1145/3643916 https://2019.icse-conferences.org/ https://icsoc2021.josueonline.com/ https://dl.acm.org/journal/tops/author-guidelines https://sites.cs.ucsb.edu/~ebelding/courses/284/papers/Rev iewingPapersStudentGuide.html https://speakerdeck.com/avandeursen/icse-2021-reviewing- process?slide=15