On the 2nd April we hosted a debate called Peer Review is Broken, How Can We Fix It? After a brief talk from each of the panelists, the debate was opened up so that the audience could ask questions. This video is the panelists’ talks section of the #prwdebate.
City University has over 150 taught postgraduate courses. As many of the students on these courses will both undergo the peer-review process themselves, and probably peer-review someone else’s work, I thought it would be interesting to survey them on their thoughts of the process.
Here are some of my results:
1) Do you think there should be more open access journals?
From a reader point of view, I want more open access journals, but from a writer´s view – no, because I will not publish if I have to pay! I have peer reviewed once and this was a very bad experience. It seemed to me more the cosmetics of the editor having fulfilled the peer review process than real care about my thoughts.
Here is a selection of audience and Twitter discussions before, during and after last week’s debate. There were hundreds of tweets which used the #prwdebate hashtag, so if you spot something we missed, let us know in the comments!
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.
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.
Can’t get enough of peer-review? You’re in the right place!
Peer Review Watch will be LiveBlogging a special seminar on “Scientific Publishing – the past, present and future of the scientific journal” at Imperial College London at 6pm today.
This event is organised by the Society of Spanish Researchers in the United Kingdom, and promises to be an exciting evening of peer-review themed discussion, as the organisers have deliberately chosen three speakers with opposing views on the issues of pay-walls, anonymity and impact factors.
Follow the action on twitter with #SRUKevents and get involved!
If you would like to attend this event, tickets are free and are still available here.
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.
Earlier this week, the discovery of gravitational waves by scientists working with the BICEP2 collaboration at the south pole made a huge impact in the media.
The discovery – the first ever glimpse of gravitational waves, ripples in spacetime predicted by Einstein, allows us to look back in time further than it was thought possible. It teaches us something fundamentally new about what happened a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after the big bang, and it could mean the beginning of a whole new era of astrophysics.
Professor Alison Smith is the Head of the Plant Metabolism Group at Cambridge University. I spoke to her about her thoughts on the current peer review process.
What do you think of the peer review process? Do you think it helps or hinders research?
I certainly don’t think it hinders research if done properly. In my experience the majority of academics are objective and fair in their assessments of papers and grant applications. The work is judged on the science and then this ensures that experiments are done correctly and interpreted appropriately, with due reference made to other work in the literature. The current trend of journals using editorial office to sift papers before sending to review and only choosing those that are ‘fashionable’ or high profile is not likely to help research generally.
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.