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 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.
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.
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 the 3rd April PeerReviewWatch hosted a panel discussion at City University in London titled ‘Peer Review is broken. How can we fix it?’ In the audience were some members of F1000 Research, who participated actively in the discussion live and on Twitter. F1000 Research is an open access but importantly open peer-review journal – the most open of its kind today, says Eva Amsen, who is the outreach director of the journal here in London.
One day after the panel at City, I met her in a coffee shop near Goodge Street to talk about peer review.
Purposely, we left the panel discussion at City wide open for different aspects of peer review. Somehow the conversation came back to the topic of ‘open peer review‘ a couple of times. As F1000 Research is at the forefront of this development, I asked Eva to explain open peer review and the difference between doing it pre- or post-publication.(more…)
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.
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.
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.