Skip to main content

Home/ OKMOOC/ Group items tagged peer

Rss Feed Group items tagged

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.
Abdul Naser Tamim

Peer Learning in Higher Education - 3 views

  •  
    In everyday life we are learning continually from each other. Whatever the situation, most of us draw on the knowledge, skills and experience of our friends and colleagues. Within any educational setting learners naturally engage in informal peer learning to make sense of their course, test their ideas and share their concerns.
  • ...1 more comment...
  •  
    Esto viene a ser un aprendizaje colaborativo, que contribuye a la alfabetización de la informaciuón.
  •  
    Peer learning is engaging, and researches say that people learns most effectively when they are interacting with each other. It creates this network of knowledge when you share and connect with people, it not only benefits the individual, but benefits everyone as a whole. It also relieves the pressure of University funding with teachers having to teach such a large class, which affects the quality of learning as well. With peer learning, students engage with one another, and will eventually find the correct answer. It is not independent learning, this is interdependent learning.
  •  
    Thank you for your share. I think this is a great article that introduces the potential of peer learning in higher education from the teacher's perspective. I agree that connected learning does a great job in promoting student's interactivity, creativity, motivation and interest in learning a particular topic with peers. In addition, peer learning provides learners with opportunities to collaborate and learn a subject together, which might maximize the productivity if used in a correct way. Peers and collaborative learners can do their own research separately, and meet together to discuss and express different opinions on the issue, which can inspire student's deep thinking. However, peer learning and collaborative learning is not always superior to individual work, or contributing to the learning result of every individual. Sometimes it might decrease the learning productivity if the group members or peer partners over reply on others in the group without doing much themselves, or if they didn't communicate well. Thus it's important to practice students learning ability and teacher's facilitating ability in peer learning or collaborative learning.
Balthas Seibold

Knowledge Commons .de » Peer-producing knowledge: a game-changer for developm... - 4 views

  •  
    Learning modes and principles of open, commons-based peer-production therefor have the potential to provide the "gold standard" of enhancing future skills, competencies, connections, capacities of people and their organisations on a global scale. In short: peer-to-peer learning around open, commons-based peer-production is a game changer in international development cooperation.
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.
Alexandra Finch

Publishing: The Peer-review scam - 2 views

a. An unfortunate phenomenon is emerging in scholarly publishing: the artificial or contrived peer review. Ferguson, et al., report the emerging issue affecting several peer review systems used by ...

peer-review scholarly publishing module9

anonymous

Open Peer Review.mov - 1 views

shared by anonymous on 10 Nov 14 - No Cached
egmaggie liked it
  •  
    Publicado el 7/5/2012 This is a brief overview of several Open Peer Review Models, including ETAI, Nature, ACP, PLoS One and EJCBS. It is recorded based on a Prezi Presentation first developed for Open Access Week 2011 at UBC.
  •  
    I found this presentation, in particular the visual representations, to be very useful in understanding just how diverse open peer review models can be. Several things stuck out to me throughout the presentation. First, I was surprised that many of the open peer review models either maintained anonymity of the reviewers or self-identification was optional. For example, PLOSone and the Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics journals did not require self-identification. This raises a tension for me in that it does enable more people to participate in the publishing/review process, but it still inherently indicates context does not matter, which is something I disagree with. That is, if, for example, a paper is on student-faculty partnerships or feminism, it seems to me that crucial insights pertain to the particularities of the people reviewing an article. The other aspect that stuck out to me was how crucial it is for a journal to be intentional about implementing, integrating, and valuing an open peer review process. The Nature experiment is a good example of this. While I am sure they spent a great deal of time figuring out how to construct and enable an open peer review process, it was not necessarily emphasized as important by the journal nor well integrated into people's current practice. In contrast, the ETAI did this by permanently archiving the peer comments rather than deleting them unannounced, and editors also sent notifications to people that articles were ready rather than assuming people would seek out articles themselves.
Raúl Marcó del Pont

From Book Censorship to Academic Peer Review - 0 views

  •  
    From Book Censorship to Academic Peer Review Mario Biagioli Together with tenure, peer review is probably the most distinctive feature of the modern academic system. Peer review, we are told, sets academia apart from all other professions by construing value through peer judgment, not market dynamics. Given the remarkable epistemological and symbolic burden placed on peer review, it is surprising to find that so little research has analyzed it either empirically (in its actual daily practices) or philosophically (as one of the conditions of possibility of academic knowledge).
Kevin Stranack

The easy way to fix peer review: Require submitters to review first. - 1 views

  •  
    "Think of your meanest high school mean girl at her most gleefully, underminingly vicious. Now give her a doctorate in your discipline, and a modicum of power over your future. That's peer review."
  •  
    Great article. Funny, descriptive and useful. Anyone non-academic who works with academics should understand the pressure of peer review and this article introduces it wonderfully. I want to dig deeper into this idea of open peer review.
  •  
    See my bookmark to: 'Open peer review is a welcome step towards transparency ...'
Kevin Stranack

Can Libraries Help Stop this Madness? | Peer to Peer Review - 0 views

  •  
    "Instead of calling for more money to prop up a traditional model that was never particularly viable in the first place, we need to embrace a variety of alternatives. Academic librarians are well positioned to lead the way here, both because of their long history of managing change and because they often hold the purse strings."
Fabrizio Terzi

Peeragogy Handbook V2 - 2 views

  •  
    (OER) Open Educational Resourse available for #OKMOOC students. What does any group of peers, or self-learners, need to know in order to self-organize learning about any topic? The Peeragogy Handbook (peeragogy.org) is a volunteer-created and maintained resource that we can use to bootstrap our peer learning in the MOOC.
rebeccakah

Is Social Media Keeping Science Trustworthy? - 1 views

  •  
    Online discussions and post-publication analyses are catching mistakes that sneak past editorial review. This article describes the pitfalls with editorial review and pre-publication peer review, and advocates for post-publication crowd-sourced reviewing through social media platforms.
  • ...1 more comment...
  •  
    The Advantage of online-journals is that the comments are next to the articles. In printed Versions corrections may be as far as several issues away and can easily get lost. I would think it would be great to actually correct the article to have it on an actual state. Correctors should be credited in the community same as the authors. That would reduce the production of new and new sensless articles and Reviews.
  •  
    I think having a comments section is a great way to provide feedback on the information provided. Often when I read articles the comments section allows me to understand different perspectives and interpretations of the information.
  •  
    This article, while not necessarily explicitly, managed to hint at what I find to be a source of problematic practices/outcomes in the academy, publishing, etc. That is, it is not necessarily that traditional peer review processes are ineffective at finding errors or misconduct, but rather it is when our processes and practices become so systematized that we can mindlessly or effortlessly engage in and reproduce them without our full, critical attention that they can produce problems. While I think there are good reasons to critique the notion of peer and "expert" culture within traditional peer review processes, an additional and separate critique is the problems that arise with systematization. The article implicitly addressed this when the author commented that current post-publication environments "provide a public space that is not under the control of journal editors and conference organizers." Yet, as White indicates, there exists skepticism of the value of post-publication reviews along with a simultaneous effort to build post-publication systems that have standards that put those questioning it at ease. The National Institutes of Health establishing requirements that potential post-publication reviewers must meet demonstrated this. That is, they are trying to figure out how to systematize post-publication. For me, what this article indicates is that we ought to figure out how to keep our academic and publishing processes "fresh," so to speak. This way we don't become so comfortable with our methods and practices that they allow us to simply go through the motions without fostering innovative and critical inquiry.
Abdul Naser Tamim

Involving students in peer review - 1 views

  •  
    The concept of student peer review has gained increased attention in higher education in recent years, in line with the growing focus on peer and collaborative learning (Falchikov, 2005; Van den Berg et al.; 2006). Peer review is a form of peer assessment that has been used for over three decades in a wide range of disciplines from Architecture to Computer Science to Music, just to name a few.
Balthas Seibold

Learning by Sharing- How global communities cultivate skills and capacity through peer-... - 12 views

  •  
    This piece was published as part of the GIZ compendium "10 trends in open innovation" and talks about self-organized and connected peer-to-peer learning for sustainable human development worldwide. Might be of interest as additional resource for Module 11: Global Perspectives on Equity, Development, and Open Knowledge
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    There are lot of ways to learn nowadays, technology spreads and most of the time it adds to our knowledge thru the information we get. It can be thru our friends, research, or even a single click over the internet. Shared thoughts helps us to understand and accept more about the particular topic, freedom has its own process that could eventually produce a network to others.
  •  
    Now people become students and teachers depending on the topic. We can share information, skills . . . that answer the question of what we are and what we will go . . . Non-formal education is more and more important not only in an individual but also in the society. Technologies and Internet can help us to develop our identity (individual and global).
  •  
    Dear Pris, dear Jurado, thanks a lot for your comments. I like the ideas and I would particularly like to know more about the thought, that "freedom has its own process tht could eventually produce a network ...". Thanks and cheers, Your Balthas
  •  
    Thanks for sharing this great article! These topics are where I would like discussions about open access to start. We may be able to use that base of peer learning communities to think about all the other issues of open access in a new light.
egmaggie

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.
mbittman

Deciding who should pay to publish peer-reviewed scientific research | John Abraham | E... - 7 views

  •  
    From the Guardian: "How open-access journals are changing the field of peer-reviewed science"
  • ...1 more comment...
  •  
    John Abraham: How open-access journals are changing the field of peer-reviewed science
  •  
    that's an experience that can lead the way to scientific publishing after that of open archiving:http://scoap3.org/
  •  
    I think there are real benefits to make the research available to everybody. Because. most of those research works are financed with tax payers money directly or indirectly. So why should there be this private monopolies milking the society and the scientists and blocking the knowledge to be spread?!!!
Balthas Seibold

Knowledge Commons .de » What makes people share knowledge? - Question 2 of 10... - 2 views

  •  
    Why do peers help peers to share and co-produce knowledge? Research suggests that there is a whole set of motivations that makes people share their knowledge, a mixture between altruistic and self-serving motives
  •  
    I agree that the 14 reasons what makes people share knowledge. great learning to share and great sharing to learn. reciprocating just like teaching and learning vis a vis learning with teaching.
Kevin Stranack

How Web-Savvy Edupunks Are Transforming American Higher Education | Fast Company | Busi... - 3 views

  •  
    "The edupunks are on the march. From VC-funded startups to the ivied walls of Harvard, new experiments and business models are springing up from entrepreneurs, professors, and students alike. Want a class that's structured like a role-playing game? An accredited bachelor's degree for a few thousand dollars? A free, peer-to-peer Wiki university? These all exist today, the overture to a complete educational remix."
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.
Olga Huertas

Who's Afraid of Peer Review? - 3 views

  •  
    Of the 255 papers that underwent the entire editing process to acceptance or rejection, about 60% of the final decisions occurred with no sign of peer review. For rejections, that's good news: It means that the journal's quality control was high enough that the editor examined the paper and declined it rather than send it out for review.
  •  
    This article is certainly controversial, and I believe in some way did a service to the Open Access community by highlighting the practice of predatory journals. However, the irony of Bohannon's article, being an example of the kind of "bad science" he describes in his own article is inescapable. First, there is no randomization of his "experimental group", and there is no control group; second, there was elimination of non-responders; third, there was no application of the intention to treat principle in the analysis; and finally there were no inferential statistics and no references! Using his own standard, there is nothing that can be concluded from his study. For the criticism regarding Bohannon's targeting of OA journals exclusively, it is important to note that this experiment has been done before with 'traditional' journals as well- and many of them failed the test of peer review. http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/02/27/how_nonsense_papers_ended_up_in_respected_scientific_journals.html
  •  
    I think Bohannens "study" should be considered more "investigative journalism" than scientific study. While it may have some flaws if held against the standards of a scientific study, as a journalistic piece it goes a long way to justify its central accusation that there are predatory open access journals. He does not claim that there are no or evwen less predatory journals in the tradional sector (although it seems reasonable to believe that it might seem easier to predatory publishers to dupe unsuspecting scientists rather than subscription paying librarians). It demonstrates that open access is not a cure for all the problems besetting acacemic publishing. I think more deeply about it, it shows that author fees for publication may create a buisiness model just as open to abouse as the traditional subscription system. One answer might be to make the peer-review process more transparent, i.e. name the reviewers But that of course has other drawbacks.
Raúl Marcó del Pont

Culture Machine Journal of Culture and Theory - 2 views

  •  
    ' Pirate Philosophy' explores how the development of various forms of so - called internet piracy is affecting ideas of the author, the book, the scholarly journal, peer review, intellectual property, copyright law, content creation and cultural production that were established pre - internet. To this end it contains a number of contributions that engage with the philosophy of internet piracy, as well as the emergence out of peer-to-peer file sharing networks of actual social movements- even a number of political 'Pirate Parties' Culture Machine Journal of Culture and Theory Vol 10 (2009)
1 - 20 of 84 Next › Last »
Showing 20 items per page