science

Peer review debate analysis

On 2 April, Peer Review Watch hosted a debate about how to fix peer review. People participated online by using the hashtag #prwdebate.

The location data of all the tweets using this hashtag can be explored on the interactive map below.

(more…)

Advertisements

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…)

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.

Live Blogging a Panel Discussion: In Science we trust. Do we?

On March 15th the University of Cambridge held a panel discussion as part of their science festival: In science we trust – Traditional publihsing, open access, post-publication review. Panelists were:

Liveblog: (Re) Inventing Science Publishing at The Royal Society

The Royal Society hosted a lunch time lecture about science publishing. More specifically about the first scientific journal the Philosophical Transaction.

People were excited… well as much as history and science academics can get excited.

So off I went to liveblog it, even though you weren’t supposed to have phones. (more…)

Interview with Professor Alison Smith

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.

alison smith

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.

(more…)