Peer Review of Health Research Funding Proposals: A Systematic Map and Systematic Review of Innovations for Effectiveness and Efficiency
Virtual peer review using videoconferencing or teleconferencing appears promising for reducing costs by avoiding the need for reviewers to travel, but again any consequences for quality have not been adequately assessed.
We present an agent-based model of paper publication and consumption that allows to study the effect of two different evaluation mechanisms, peer review and reputation, on the quality of the manuscripts accessed by a scientific community.
Citizen Science Can Make Systematic Reviews Faster and More Efficient
Citizen science: crowdsourcing for systematic reviews looks at how people can contribute their expertise to scientific studies using new online platforms - even if they don’t think of themselves as researchers or scientists.
Publons’ ECR Reviewer Choice Award celebrates early-career researchers' exceptional contribution to peer review, recognizing an individual who has been influential in the realm of peer review or has significantly contributed to improving the system.
Scholarly Publishing Is Broken. Here’s How to Fix It
Imagine using version control to track the process of research in real time. Peer review becomes a community-governed process, where the quality of engagement becomes the hallmark of individual reputations. All research outputs can be published and credited with not an 'impact factor' in sight.
Signing My Peer Review - Unintended Consequences and Gender
Roughly two years ago, I began to sign every peer review I did for journals. It resulted directly from a review on an article that I received that had glaring issues and made me wonder "Would they have been this sloppy if they had to attribute their name to this work?"
Effectiveness of Anonymization in Double-Blind Review
In a controlled experiment with two disjoint program committees, the ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM'17) found that reviewers with author information were 1.76x more likely to recommend acceptance of papers from famous authors, and 1.67x more likely to recommend acceptance of papers from top institutions.
Right now, the overwhelming majority of peer reviewers, the scientists who scrutinize the latest studies, aren't paid for their labor. This is completely ridiculous. Peer review may be the most important part of the scientific enterprise, and it is not incentivized monetarily.