Skip to main content

Home/ OKMOOC/ Group items tagged peer review

Rss Feed Group items tagged


The Blind Shall See! The Question of Anonymity in Journal Peer Review - 1 views

    This article provides a brief historical contextualization of different forms of peer review. It does well to highlight not only pros and cons of the various processes, but it also discusses the positions from which these pros and cons come form. For example, gender is discussed, revealing that women frequently advocate for anonymous peer review due to the sexism they encounter leading to their work not being published. Another aspect that the authors engage with is how the technologies available shape the forms that peer review takes.

Is the Peer Review Process for Scientific Papers Broken? - 3 views

    Un post (en inglés) en el que se hace una crítica sobre el proceso de revisión por pares para las publicaciones científicas.
    En realidad, muchas veces el sistema de revisión queda un poco en entredicho cuando el peso de uno de los autores puede hacer que el artículo se publique casi sólo. Otras veces, al proponer a revisores, lógicamente la propuesta se hace a revisores amigos que pueden ser algo más subjetivos a la hora de revisar tu artículo. Sin embargo, cuando empiezas de cero, y tu nombre no tiene aún ningún peso, tienes que tener un trabajo muy muy bueno para que pueda ser aceptado. Aún así, parece ser el método menos malo que conocemos para garantizar la objetividad. Esto no quita a que hay revisores muy buenos, de los cuáles se aprende y el artículo enviado se ve enriquecido. Y, como digo, también es positivo la rapidez a la hora de evaluar un artículo, teniendo en cuenta que el trabajo de revisión es siempre desinteresado (yo intento revisar en las fechas que me imponen con el objetivo de que cuando yo mande un nuevo trabajo susceptible de ser publicado, pueda ser revisado también en los plazos estipulados por la revista). Saludos. Antonio.
Kim Baker

Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles, smashes 'peer review ring' - 3 views

    Every now and then a scholarly journal retracts an article because of errors or outright fraud. In academic circles, and sometimes beyond, each retraction is a big deal. Now comes word of a journal retracting 60 articles at once.
    Thank you for sharing! The article highlights a problem of Internet where one can create any number of digital identities and use them for various purposes hoping that this will go unnoticed. This time the activity takes place in the settings of a scientific journal peer review.

How Rigorous Is the Post-publication Review Process at F1000 Research? - 0 views

    This provides blog post provides an interesting comparison of the post-publication review process of F1000 Research to the traditional peer review model. What I really found interesting is the author's hypothesis that the anonymity of traditional peer review might benefit science.
Fernando Carraro

El proceso de revisión por pares (en español) - 4 views

    En este vídeo se explica con buen detalle lo que es la Revisión por Pares (Peer Review).
Philip Sidaway

Open peer review is a welcome step towards transparency, but heightened visibility may ... - 0 views

    The issue of subjectivity in peer reviewing an open access journal article where the name of the author is disclosed.
    What I appreciated most about Costa's account of her first time experiences with an open peer review where author/reviewer are known to one other is that the changes it invoked in her behavior ought to have been possible in under traditional peer review. There is another article in the Diigo, Is Social Media Saving Science?, where I discuss this a bit, but what Costa's comment highlight is that traditional peer review processes are partially problematic simply because we've become too comfortable with the process, enabling us to take shortcuts. That is, we know what our responsibilities and duties are to one another as peers, but we are not fulfilling them because there are not external pressures. I agree with Costa's insights. Simultaneously, I find it concerning that there is a need for "peer pressure," in a sense, for us to fulfill our responsibilities. It makes me question how we can change our practices in a way that make us actually want to do our best, regardless of external pressures. For me, this raises very big picture questions regarding how we can change the meaning of work so that it doesn't invoke us to cut corners because we are not wholly invested and/or enjoying how we are spending our time.
Kevin Stranack

Crowd-Sourced Peer Review: Substitute or Supplement? - Open Access Archivangelism - 4 views

    "If, as rumoured, google builds a platform for depositing unrefereed research papers for "peer-reviewing" via crowd-sourcing, can this create a substitute for classical peer-review or will it merely supplement classical peer review with crowd-sourcing?"
    Two facts that makes me think, peer-reviewing via crowd-sourcing, at best would supplement the traditional peer-review process. Fact one, there are already open access repositories that allow "deposit first; review later", but those repositories have not taken over other journals. Fact two, Wikipedia is an example in that, though theoretically anyone can contribute and edit the articles, there is definite number of people who would do it. Therefore, I don't see crowd sourcing peer review would really substitute the traditional route.
    I appreciated that this source was framed outside of dichotomous thinking by not pitting more traditional and open access peer review models directly against one another, carrying the assumption that a particular publishing process must choose one or another. Although, I think I would challenge Harnad to take this thought process further. Rather than supplementing or complementing one another, traditional and open peer review models are distinct enough to also be applicable in different types of contexts, without necessarily needing to rely on one another. That is not to disagree with Harnad that the two do not "substitute" one another, but precisely because they cannot substitute one another indicates that they serve different purposes and could thus be useful in different contexts…. Or, as Harnad suggest, supplement each other in the same context. I think this very well parallels the context of taxonomies and folksonomies.
1 - 7 of 7
Showing 20 items per page