academic journals

Peer Review: Nuts & Bolts

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.

Public discussion of problematic studies increases the number of corrective actions. True?

Several online forums developed over the last years to foster open discussion of peer-reviewed scientific publications, PeerPub and PeerJ are two of them. The integrity of data is central to the discussion – assuming that discussed openly problems with data will helo to correct the scientific record.

But is this assumption justified?

Paul S. Brookes, a researcher at the University of Rochester in the United States, wanted to find out. He created a blog as a platform for people to submit questionable data along with the respective publications to him to be published and discussed in an open forum. (more…)

Retractions Over Time

As the pressures on academics to publish increase it may seem logical that academics would be more inclined to ‘fudge’ the numbers in order to make the results look better. Many journalists and academics have brought up this point and are concerned that fraud and academic misconduct are becoming an increasing problem within the academic community and peer-review is failing to catch it. But are the concerns justified?

Below is a graph showing the number of retractions from PubMed. In 2011 retractions peaked at 373. Since then there has been in a decline in the number of retractions. However, the number of retractions seem to be on the rise again in 2013.

Screen Shot 2014-04-27 at 22.26.20

(more…)

Is peer review broken? Vote! [POLL]

As a follow up to our lively debate last week, Peer Review is Broken, How Do We Fix it?  we invite you to vote in our poll:

(more…)

Guest Post: Reviewing the Peer Review System

This is a cross post from  Dalmeet Singh Chawla (@DalmeetS) originally published on I,SCIENCE.

IMAGE SOURCE: AJ Cann on Flickr

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…)

Timeline: History of Peer Review

Screen Shot 2014-03-23 at 16.16.49

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.

Peer review: an author’s perspective

To get an idea of what it is like going through the peer review process as a paper’s author, I spoke to physicist Joe Goodwin, who recently had his first paper reviewed before publication in Nature Communications.

Q: How long did the reviewing process take, from submission to a published paper?

A: My paper in Nature Communications was first submitted in May, and was published in October. Half of that delay was at our end, but Nature Communications publishes so many hundreds of papers per year that everything takes a while.

(more…)