Abstract / OSI2017 Workgroup Question Building on the peer review workgroup’s proposals from OSI2016, this workgroup will develop a broader and clearer description of peer review that considers the different needs for different stages of review, as well as discuss possibly emerging issues such as the need to promote uniform interpretation and enforcement of peer...Read More
According to a report at STM-Publishing.com, The open access journal, BMC Psychology, has announced it will launch the first ever randomized controlled trial to find out if a ‘results free’ peer-review process can help reduce publication bias. ‘Results free’ means that reviewers of research manuscripts submitted for publication will not be able to see the...Read More
.entry-header More often than not, on any given day, someone sends me a link to an article detailing 1) why it is academic science needs more funds and 2) all the ways the system rewards the wrong behaviors and 3) why 2 is a result of 1. Here’s the latest example: http://www.vox.com/2016/7/14/12016710/science-challeges-research-funding-peer-review-process What is missing...Read More
Key points Post-publication peer review (PPPR) has not achieved its promise and potential. Few articles receive PPPR – even those in high-profile journals. PPPR is difficult to find and needs to be linked to the original article. Academics require recognition if they are to contribute their time to PPPR. Improving PPPR would improve the scholarly...Read More
Abstract The OSI2016 Peer Review workgroup focused on peer review in the context of open scholarship. The group agreed that greater openness and transparency would improve accountability, minimize bias, and encourage collaboration, but did not underestimate the challenges of openness, nor the variation in readiness across disciplines and publishing models. The group recommended facilitation of...Read More
