MERGING TRENDS IN PEER REVIEW EMERGING TRENDS IN PEER-REVIEW. 2 PROGRAM •Classical peer review •Immediate

  • View
    0

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Text of MERGING TRENDS IN PEER REVIEW EMERGING TRENDS IN PEER-REVIEW. 2 PROGRAM •Classical peer review...

  • LIBRARY

    Vincent.Huber@unige.ch

    Audrey.Bellier@unige.ch 12 December 2017

    Midi de l’info scientifique

    EMERGING TRENDS IN PEER-REVIEW

  • 2

    PROGRAM

    • Classical peer review

    • Immediate publication with no formal review

    • Immediate publication with post-publication

    review

    • Multiphase review: mix of pre- and post-publication

    review

    • Portable review

  • 3

    CLASSICAL PEER REVIEW

    http://archive.senseaboutscience.org/pages/peerreviewed

    ucation.html

  • 4

    ADVANTAGES OF PEER-REVIEW

    • Anonymity of the review process → free

    expression of critical views

    • No interaction among reviewers → no influence

    or pressure

    • Improves the quality of scientific publications:

    filtering out low quality papers, catching errors,

    improving the writing…

  • 5

    KEY OBJECTIONS TO

    CLASSICAL PEER REVIEW

    1. Delay

    2. Bias against specific categories of paper

    3. Social and cognitive biases

    4. Unreliability

    5. Inability to detect errors and fraud

    6. Lack of transparency – unethical practices

    7. Lack of recognition for reviewers

    Walker et Rocha da Silva, 2015

  • 6

    INTERACTIONS DURING

    PRE-PUBLICATION REVIEWING

    • EMBO Journal: cross-peer review (referees

    comment on each others’ reports)

    • eLife: online consultation of other referee’s reports

    • Frontiers: Collaborative Review Forum (feedbacks

    between reviewers, authors and editors)

  • 7

    • a website and free service for academics to

    track, verify and showcase their peer review

    • Launched in 2012. In 2017: 200,000

    researchers, with over 1 million reviews

    https://publons.com/author/707968/thomas-lacoue-labarthe#profile

  • 8

    NEW PEER-REVIEWING IMPLIES NEW

    REVIEWERS

    ● Editors-selected Reviewers

    ● Author-selected Reviewers

    ● Volunteered Reviewers (Open Peer Commentary)

    ● Community/Public Review

    ● What kind of rewards a reviewer can get?

    Jubb, 2016 & Walker et Rocha da Silva, 2015

  • Immediate publication with

    no formal review

  • 10

    NON-COMMERCIAL PRE-PRINT SERVERS

    • Papers available to readers

    • No prior review or minimal «access review»

    • Example: ArXiv since 1991

  • 11

    JOURNAL PUBLISHERS PREPRINT SERVERS

    • Nature Precedings (stopped in 2012)

    • PeerJ Preprints

  • Immediate publication with

    post-publication review

    “Publication and Peer Review are two

    independent concepts”

    F1000Research

  • 13

    POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW

    F1000Research

  • 14

    POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW

    • Distinguish the publication and the Peer

    Review

    • Shorten the processes

    • Crossed reviews increase quality

    • Reviews considered as mini publications

    Kriegeskorte, 2012

  • 15

    POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW

    https://f1000research.com/articles/6-1515/v4

  • 16

    POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW

    https://f1000research.com/articles/6-1515/v4

  • 17

    POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW

    https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/17/14675/2017/acp-17-14675-

    2017.html

  • 18

    POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW

    https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/17/14675/2017/acp-17-14675-

    2017.html

  • 19

    OPEN REVIEW

    ● A review procedure in which author names AND

    reviewer names are revealed

    ○ But reviewer identities are not necessary

    revealed

    ○ Sometimes only an option

    ● Open Reports (Full reports are published)

    ● Increases interaction between authors and reviewers

    which facilitates constructive feedback et dialog

    Jubb 2016, Ross-Hellauer, 2017 & Walker et Rocha da Silva, 2015

  • Multiphase review:

    mix of pre- and post-publication review

  • 21

    FRONTIERS IN NEUROSCIENCE

    • Tiering system: «democratic» selection of

    outstanding research

    • «Tier 1»: publication after normal pre-

    publication review

    • «Tier 2»: invite authors with top viewed and

    downloaded papers to write a «Focused

    Review»

  • 22

    PRE-PUBLICATION REVIEW

    + IN CHANNEL COMMENTARY

    • Out of a sample of 53 journals using formal review, 24

    provide the option to readers to comment on the article

    • Only 17% of articles published in PLOS ONE had

    comments

  • 23

    PRE-PUBLICATION REVIEW

    + OUT OF CHANNEL COMMENTARY

    Academic social networks and repositories for

    documents published elsewhere:

    • F1000 prime

    • PubMed Commons

    • Pubpeer.com

    • ResearchGate

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/journals/2025/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28215660 https://pubpeer.com/publications/51F8AEF8D8C2E7F2A7527A3DF91641#18

  • Portable review

  • 25

    PORTABLE REVIEW: «RECYCLING» OF

    PREVIOUS REVIEWING REPORTS

    • Reports from the review by a 1st journal

    (which rejected the paper) are passed on to a

    2nd journal

    • Often for journals from the same publishers

    (Nature Publishing Group, Biomedcentral...)

  • 26

    COMMERCIAL PORTABLE REVIEW

    • 1st step: Authors submit their papers for

    review by a commercial review service

    • 2nd step: authors (or the commercial service)

    submit the paper along with the reports to a

    journal

    • Axios/Rubriq: charge authors a fee

    • Peerage of science: receives revenue only

    from journals and publishers

    https://www.peerageofscience.org/

  • 27

    TAKE HOME MESSAGE

    • 2 major trends:

    - Repository with only access review (e.g. ArXiv)

    - Publishers with non-selective review (e.g. PLoS

    ONE, Frontiers…)

    • New innovative forms, still rare:

    - Open review, which remove reviewer anonymity

    - Interactive review between reviewers, authors and

    editors

    - Informal reader commentary

  • 28

    BIBLIOGRAPHY

    • ACP. Consulté le 12 décembre 2017. https://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-

    physics.net/index.html.

    • F1000Research. Consulté le 12 décembre 2017. https://f1000research.com/.

    • Hunter, J. (2012). Post-Publication Peer Review: Opening Up Scientific

    Conversation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 6.

    • Jubb, M. (2016). Peer review: The current landscape and future trends: Peer

    review landscape. Learned Publishing 29, 13–21.

    • Kriegeskorte, N. (2012). Open Evaluation: A Vision for Entirely Transparent Post-

    Publication Peer Review and Rating for Science. Frontiers in Computational

    Neuroscience 6.

    • Ross-Hellauer, T. (2017). What is open peer review? A systematic review.

    F1000Research 6, 588.

    • Sense about Science. Consulté le 12 décembre 2017.

    http://archive.senseaboutscience.org/index.html.

    • Walker, R., and Rocha da Silva, P. (2015). Emerging trends in peer reviews - a

    survey. Frontiers in Neuroscience 9.

    https://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/index.html https://f1000research.com/ http://archive.senseaboutscience.org/index.html