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.
Filmed and edited by Shivali Best and Abby Beall.
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.
Associate Dean of Research for the Department of Psychology at City University London.
An interview examining what goes through the mind of a peer reviewer when they are asked to look at a paper and some top tips for Postgraduates who may be going through the process themselves. Have a listen and let us know if this is what goes through your head when you’re asked yet again to peer review. Tweet us @peerrevwatch or the author @mishagajewski or leave a comment below.
photograph: Luc Melanson
Groupthink could be the crack in the corner stone of science, peer-review, and open access may be a possible solution, suggests one expert.
Groupthink 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.