Posts Tagged ‘Peer-reviewed’
• Curate the peer review of your scholarly communications
• Make your work visible to scholarly search engines
• Track the impact & reuse of what you share online
• Disseminate anywhere and collect all feedback here
• Support Open Access to research
This new service hopes to complement the conventional quantitative metric system with a whole new set of qualitative indicators that are comprehensive, transparent and immediately verifiable by researchers and funding institutions, allowing scientists themselves to curate the peer reviewing of their own papers.
In science it pays to have friends. Peer reviewers picked by the authors of a manuscript tend to provide more favourable feedback than scientists selected by the journal’s editors. That’s the unsurprising conclusion of an analysis of more than 500 manuscripts.
It’s not hard to come up with explanations for such patterns. “The danger is really that an author suggested their best friends,” Bornmann says. Alternatively – and more charitably – the reviewers selected by authors could in a better position to know a good result in their field when they see one, compared to those selected by journal editors, he says.
Callaway. Ellen. Who needs friends when you’ve got peer reviewers?. The great beyond (Nature), posted on October 18, 2010.
On the basis that only 40% of top science journals articles are cited by others within the 5 yers after publication (according Peter Jasco, .2009), Derek Lowe wonders why low quality papers get pubished and advocates for chemical data archives…
Lowe, Derek. What to do with the not-quite worthless. In the pipeline, online 25th of June, 2010:
One of the longest post I ever tried to read!
Amongst bad and good things, the author tells how a scientist today tries to keep up with novelties.
“One would think that in today’s information age, scientists can easily keep up with new discoveries. However, these discoveries are buried in 24,000 journals most of which cannot be accessed by the individual scientist, because his/her institution does not subscribe to them“.
In order to keep current, here below what he has to do:
- Read Tables of contents of fifteen or so favorite journals
- Go through PubMed alerts
- Read mailing-lists digest
- Look at some important web sites, social networks, news wires, etc.
- Listen science podcasts
He estimates “that this takes about 12-14h per week just to keep on top of things“.
The rest of the post is mainly complains against STM publishers, peer-reviewed system, etc. who are partly responsible for the information overload.
Who should be in charge of how Scientists organize their workflow?
Jean-Claude Bradley: Peer review and science 2.0: blogs, wikis and social networking sites.
Open Notebook Science (ONS) is the practice of making a researchproject publicly available, as soon as it is recorded.
The author gives 7 major tips to be respected to make ONS trusted sources for labs data diffusion.
The RIN just released an excellent summary of the peer-reviewed process…
About new way for researchers to publish their findings, the study concludes:
“Alongside these issues are those raised by researchers’ suse of blogs,
wikis and other Web 2.0 technologies to communicate with their colleagues and more broadly, as well as social tagging services through which they may make their personal reading lists available to others. Use of such services has not yet become widespread across the research community (see RIN 2010 [in press]); and cultures and protocols relating to their use are not as yet well-established”
Peer review: a guide for researchers. White paper by the Research Information Network, March 2010. Available online: http://www.rin.ac.uk/node/519
An important study has been published by the RIN.
The report examines the motivations, incentives and constraints that lead UK researchers in different subjects and disciplines to publish and disseminate their work in different ways. It explores how and why they cite other researchers’ work, as well as how their decisions on publication and citation are inﬂuenced by past and anticipated research assessment.
Only 12 % of UK researchers consider as “very important” or “quite important” to communicate on Blog or web forums!
The survey shows that over 60% of researchers believe that open access repositories are either ‘not important’ or ‘not applicable’ to the dissemination of their research. This may reflect researchers’ concerns about the little influence of this new way to disseminate Science
Traditional channels (Peer reviewed journals and Conference communciations) are still the preferred choice (respectively 99.9% and 86 % “very important” or “quite important”).