Beyond Peer Review

Kristen RatanALA Annual Meeting

28 June 2014

PLOS

2

jakebeal.blogspot.com320 × 255Search by image

3

http://jasonpriem.org/2010/10/medline-literature-growth-chart/

4

http://editorsupdate.elsevier.com/poll-results/pressure-grants-publish-driving-rise-unethical-practices-authors/

Yes

5

“the inflated value given to publishing in a small number of so-called “high impact” journals has put pressure on authors to rush into print, cut corners, exaggerate their findings, and overstate the significance of their work.”

6

7

PLOS ALM

12,288 comments over 124,897 articles

8

~2500 reviews/week in PLOS ONE

9

Editor Reviewers

Authors

Pre-publication

10

Continuous Evaluation

Editor Reviewers

AuthorsEditor Reviewers

Authors

Editor Reviewers

Authors

Editor Reviewers

Authors

Pre-publication Y1 Y2 Y3

11

12

13

ALM Reports

alm.plos.org

Allows researchers, institutions & funders to: • create a report of the ALMs for a

single or set of PLOS articles • view a summary of the metrics

along with an accompanying set of data visualizations.

Search based on: • keyword• author name & country • affiliation• publication date• subject areas• funder

Open Evaluation: Importance to Science & Shared Knowledge

This work makes a minor contribution to the field of study

This work makes a significant contribution to science knowledge

This work advances the field

If the user selects either of these two options, display the following:

If the user selects either of these two options, display the following:

This work is a major scientific breakthrough

This work has an important or novel method

This work will lead to reinterpretation of well- established findings

This work opens a new area of inquiry in the field

This work has an important or significant conclusion:

This work makes little to no contribution to science knowledge

I think this work was not worth doing

15