peer review

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…)

Peer Review Debate VIDEO

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.

Postgraduate perceptions of peer-review

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?

ImageComments:

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.

 

(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…)

Reactions to #prwdebate

Screen Shot 2014-04-09 at 21.03.36

Well, seeing as you asked so nicely…

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!

Click here for our Storify collection of tweets from the event!

(more…)

Highlights from our liveblog of #prwdebate

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.

Click here for some highlights from our live blog of the event on Twitter.

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

 Panelists

allspeakers   (more…)

Nikolaus Kriegeskorte: How to rebuild peer review [VIDEO]

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.

BkPI4h7IgAARrCH

(more…)

Panel Discussion: Is Peer Review Broken?

ROOM UPDATE: BG03 in the ground floor – enter at Northampton Sq

Tomorrow we are hosting a panel discussion here at City University in London around the question ‘Is Peer Review Broken?’. We want to discuss the IF and HOW but even more so ‘How can we fix it?’

If you are actively involved in peer review, wheather you are a PhD student, postdoc, principal investigator or a publisher or if you are a journalist who wants to join the debate – come along!

Our panelists will be:

  • Tom Reller | Vice President and Head of Global Relations at Elsevier
  • Richard Van Noorden | Senior Reporter at Nature
  • Tiago Villanueva | Editorial Registrar at the BMJ
  • Maria Kowalczuk | Deputy Biology Editor at BioMed Central
  • Peter Ayton | Associate Dean of Research at City University
  • Nikolaus Kriegeskorte | Principal Investigator at the MRC, Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit

Chair: Connie St Louis | Director, City University Science Journalism MA and award winning journalist

Join the event, discuss with the panel and help to find constructive new ways for scientific peer review! There will be a panel discussion for 90 minutes and wine and nibbles after the event.

Follow the discussion before and after the event @peerrevwatch under the #prwdebate

Attendance is free but please register here at Eventbrite!

Location: City University London | EC1V0HB United Kingdom

Room BG03 [enter by Northampton Square, lower level]

LiveBlog: Scientific publishing – the past, present and future of the scientific journal

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.

While you’re on EventBrite, make sure you register for our own upcoming event “Peer-review is broken, how do we fix it?” to be held at City University London on April 2nd at 6pm!

Check out the LiveBlog here!

Coveritlive