User:Anthonyhcole/Expert review

__NOINDEX__

Background

 * Ferreira et al (2015) "The evolution of peer review as a basis for scientific publication: directional selection towards a robust discipline?" Biological Reviews - Cambridge Philosophical Society. doi: 10.1111/brv.12185.


 * "Accordingly, we propose that large, multi-dimensional changes are likely necessary to push the peer-review system toward novel regions of its potential evolutionary space."
 * "Solutions presented so far may be broadly classified as: (1) rewarding authors for their contributions to review, (2) standardizing peer-review protocols and leading criteria for publication by refining measures of impact of publications and speeding up the system, and (3) opening peer review to increase transparency and reviewer accountability."


 * Gould THP (2012) "Do We Still Need Peer Review? : An Argument for Change": Lanham: Scarecrow Press eISBN: 9780810885752


 * "In theory, academic scholars - typically three - dispassionately review research produced by cohort members of the academy, almost all of whom are assistant, associate, or full professors." (Page 3.)


 * "...misfeasance and malfeasance, including, to name a few, varying application of standards, inadequate time in considering work, personal biases, hegemony, and chauvinism." (Page 3.)


 * "Complicating the entire peer review debate is a detail added a mere 60-odd years ago but found both vital to the accuracy of the procedure and also equally troublesome to critics. Since the 1950s, the actual act of review - in both the vetting of submitted research articles and the granting of academic tenure - has been performed anonymously." (Page 4.)


 * "Step one: In the world of academic publishing, research starts with the researcher, typically an assistant or associate professor seeking tenure or promotion. This individual works within an environment that not only fosters research, but also ensures that the professor understands what is an appropriate research focus. This focus can be critiqued for a faculty person either by a department director or faculty executive committee in the form of annual reviews. ... "Step two: The completed research article is submitted to a journal and examined by an editor to determine if the work is "suitaable" for publication. That is, the editor presumably does not determine the value of the research work presented, only whether the work, based on the subject and other factors, is appropriate for the journal. ... "Step three: If the paper is considered a good match, it is sent by the editor to reviewers, chosen - presumably - on their particularly appropriate acumen to the research subject. These reviewers determine whether the work is sound in the application of theory and method, and whether it rises to a subjectively defined level of importance. ... "Once this review is completed, the article under review can be accepted as is or accepted but returned to the author for specific revisions. It can also be rejected, either with finality or with the suggestion that the author undertake major revisions and then resubmit the work for a new round of review. ....
 * "As to the previously cited issue of "ideas" versus "scientific merit," the terms themselves defy definition. If we are to clear the air of vagaries, we must avoid allowing reviewers to be anything short of absolutely clear in their opinions of the value of a work. The conduct of a reviewer is almost as important as the research itself. ... A rejection is no time for brevity. ... "Step four: Once the reviewers have made their judgments regarding the value of the work, their specific comments are gathered by the editor. The editor can then either pass the comments on to the author or summarize the findings. Typically, editors share only the negative comments, usually as a rationale for rejection. ... In some cases the improvements are offered as an avenue for resubmission to the same journal. This is called a "revise and resubmit" evaluation, offered by the editor, based on the reviewers' opinions." (Pages 6-8.)
 * "In practice the process has many vagaries, starting with the very definition of what constitutes a 'peer'. ...the academic peer harkens back to a more royal term, referencing the landed gentry who might be most often found in the British House of Lords. A peer has a loftier status and, by way of that standing, is better suited to judge those academically below them. ... Peer review of an academic work rests on the opinion of those who are not equals, but presumed superiors ..." (Page. 9-10)
 * "Two possible models are proposed in Chapter 7: one suggests the ascension of the journal editor to one of total power in reviewing research articles. The other suggests the use of trained librarians as ultimate impassive judges." (Page 15.)

Independent review services

 * Ferrrira eet al. (2015)


 * "RubriqTM, in particular, is a for-benefit organization (i.e. one that generates earned income, but gives top priority to an explicit social mission) that proposes to provide standardized peer review that is independent from journals, where qualified peer reviewers are paid to review manuscripts."


 * Van Noorden R (2013) "Company offers portable peer review" Nature 494, 161 doi:10.1038/494161a
 * "Peerage of Science, based in Jyväskylä, Finland. That service has signed up a community of more than 1,100 scientists and has processed 67 manuscripts. Authors pay nothing. Instead, journals subscribe to the service and are charged up to €400 (US$540) for each manuscript they accept (three have been published in this way so far)."
 * "Rubriq’s emphasis is on speed. By paying peer reviewers $100 each, it hopes to get reviews back within a week. That payment will not compensate a reviewer for his or her time (which economic analyses have estimated as worth on the order of $400 per review) but it could start to professionalize what has historically been a voluntary role, Collier says. The payments are covered by Rubriq’s fee to authors, which also covers the administrative burden of recruiting reviewers and assigning papers — an estimated $200. "


 * Peerage of Science
 * Authors submit manuscript to Peerage of Science, before submitting to any journal. Submitting Author decides the deadlines for the four stages of the process, which are thereafter automatically enforced. Once submitted, any qualified* non-affiliated** Peer can engage to review the manuscript. Peer reviews are themselves peer reviewed, increasing and quantifying the quality of peer review. The peer review process is available concurrently to all subscribing journals, with automated event tracking. Authors may accept a direct publishing offer from subscribing journal, or choose to export the peer reviews to any journal of their choice.


 * Scientific Reports charges $1,495 to publish an article.

People

 * Charon Pierson/Ivan Oransky AMA


 * "I’m Charon Pierson, an elected member of the Governing Council for the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). I’ve been a journal editor for 25 years and a COPE Council member since 2012. I’ve had my share of ethical dilemmas in my editing career and found the COPE resources very useful for sorting through the sometimes complicated situations journal editors encounter."


 * "I’m Ivan Oransky, the co-founder of Retraction Watch, a site that tracks retractions, fraud, and error among scientific publications. I’m also the vice president and global editorial director of MedPage Today. I teach medical journalism at New York University’s Science, Health, and Environmental Reporting Program, and I’m the vice president of the Association of Health Care Journalists."


 * Fiona Godlee

Open peer review

 * BioMed Central open peer review
 * "What is 'open peer review', as operated by the medical journals in the BMC series?
 * "Open peer review means that the reviewers' names are included on the peer review reports. In addition, if the article is published, the named reports are published online alongside the article as part of a 'pre-publication history'. All previous versions of the manuscript, and all author responses to the reviewers are also available to readers. The biology journals within the BMC series operate a traditional, anonymous peer-review process. View a full list of the biology and medical journals within the BMC series."

Funding
Nick Hanauer Wikipedia article: "Hanauer and his wife, Leslie, co-manage The Nick and Leslie Hanauer Foundation "which focuses on public education and the environment, and additionally supports a variety of progressive causes locally and nationally."

"Hanauer is active in the Seattle community and Washington’s public education system. He co-founded the League of Education Voters (LEV), a non-partisan political organization dedicated to improving the quality of public education in Washington. He also serves on the boards of Cascade Land Conservancy, The University of Washington Foundation."