Professor John Gilbert, Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Science Education and Alice Ellingham, Director of the Editorial Office Ltd. discuss the nuts and bolts of peer review at the Sense about Science Workshop on April 25, 2014.
This video was filmed by Lindsay McKenzie and edited by Misha Gajewski.
On April 2 Peer Review Watch hosted our first Peer Review Debate entitled Peer review is broken, how do we fix it? An excellent panel, lively audience and online participation through the event’s hashtag, #prwdebate made the event a great success.
This is just a fraction of the tweets that used the hashtag, but feel free to catch up on the event by watching it here, or getting involved in the ongoing discussion on Twitter using the hashtag #prwdebate.
Tweets by @jack_millner and @SyTpp
Peer Review Watch would like to say thank you to all the panelists, audience members and those who got involved on Twitter last night. It was the excellent level of participation that made the debate a success.
If you attended the debate or watched it live on our Google Hangouts On-Air stream, you will remember panelist Nikolaus Kriegeskorte erasing peer review and reconstructing science publishing before our eyes on the white board.
This is a cross post from Dalmeet Singh Chawla (@DalmeetS) originally published on I,SCIENCE.
IMAGE SOURCE: AJ Cann on Flickr
On 4 October 2013, Science published a special issue on communication in science containing the ‘open access sting article’ that went on to cause huge controversy worldwide. The study consisted of John Bohannon deliberately submitting articles with mistakes to various open access journals. Out of the 304 journals the paper was submitted (more…)
From the church trying to control everything to open access, peer review has seen some major changes and worn some interesting hats. It has taken a long time for peer review to become what it is today. Click on the photo to navigate through the history of peer review and find out how peer review developed into the gold standard of science we know today.
Most of the data is thanks to Thomas H.P. Gould’s wonderful book Do We Still Need Peer Review? An argument for change. For more history on the first academic journal check out the Liveblog: (Re) Inventing Science Publishing.
photograph: Luc MelansonGroupthink is a psychological phenomenon where more emphasis is placed on consensus than free thought when making a decision. The result is often poor decisions as everyone is so focused on conformity they forget to consider the caveats of their choice. Irving Janis, the father of groupthink theory, outlines that there are eight symptoms of groupthink, which make it more likely for the phenomenon to happen, such as the group is small and defined with unified decision-making powers.
PEER REVIEW WATCH 