共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 562 毫秒
1.
This paper investigates the impact of referee reliability on the quality and efficiency of peer review. We modeled peer review as a process based on knowledge asymmetries and subject to evaluation bias. We tested various levels of referee reliability and different mechanisms of reviewing effort distribution among agents. We also tested different scientific community structures (cohesive vs. parochial) and competitive science environments (high vs. low competition). We found that referee behavior drastically affects peer review and an equal distribution of the reviewing effort is beneficial only if the scientific community is homogeneous and referee reliability is the rule. We also found that the Matthew effect in the allocation of resources and credit is inherent to a ‘winner takes all’ well functioning science system, more than a consequence of evaluation bias. 相似文献
2.
Susan van Rooyen 《Learned Publishing》2001,14(2):85-91
This paper discusses the role of peer review in the decision-making processes of scientific journals. It outlines the objectives of peer review and some of the problems. It then goes on to describe research into the quality of peer review, in particular the BMJ's programme of research to date, the results obtained, and consequent changes in practice. It also looks briefly at future possibilities for research into the peer-review process. 相似文献
3.
《Journal of Informetrics》2019,13(2):708-716
Peer review is not only a quality screening mechanism for scholarly journals. It also connects authors and referees either directly or indirectly. This means that their positions in the network structure of the community could influence the process, while peer review could in turn influence subsequent networking and collaboration. This paper aims to map these complex network implications by looking at 2232 author/referee couples in an interdisciplinary journal that uses double blind peer review. By reconstructing temporal co-authorship networks, we found that referees tended to recommend more positively submissions by authors who were within three steps in their collaboration network. We also found that co-authorship network positions changed after peer review, with the distances between network neighbours decreasing more rapidly than could have been expected had the changes been random. This suggests that peer review could not only reflect but also create and accelerate scientific collaboration. 相似文献
4.
《期刊图书馆员》2012,62(1-4):33-46
Adam Bly, founder and director of Seed Media Group, describes the potential of science to improve the state of the world. But for the potential of science to be realized, it must be integrated into society after two preconditions have been met: science literacy must be aimed at creating seven billion scientifically literate people, and we must move from closed to open science. For the first, society needs to change the way it engages with science; engaging through culture and ideas has been a goal of Seed Media Group. For the second, there must be a mandated free flow of information; peer review must be reinvented; and scientific publishing needs to be removed from the hands of publishers and put in the hands of society. 相似文献
5.
6.
7.
Ulrich Pschl 《Learned Publishing》2004,17(2):105-113
Many scientific publications are careless, useless or false, and inhibit scholarly communication and scientific progress. This is caused by the failure of traditional journal publishing and peer review to provide efficient scientific exchange and quality assurance in today's highly diverse world of science. The most promising way to improve matters is a two‐stage (or multi‐stage) publication processes with interactive peer review and public discussion in new and traditional scientific journals. A concept for such interactive scientific journals is outlined, and its applicability is demonstrated by the open access journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. 相似文献
8.
9.
10.
11.
Chris Drummond 《Learned Publishing》2019,32(1):63-69
This paper is a critique of the part played by the reproducible research movement within the scientific community. In particular, it raises concerns about the strong influence the movement is having on which papers are published. The primary effect is through changes to the peer review process. These not only require that the data and software used to generate the reported results be part of the review but also that the novelty criterion should be deprecated. This paper questions a central tenet of the movement, the idea of a single, well‐defined, and iterative scientific method. Philosophers, historians of science, and scientists alike have argued extensively against the idea of a single method. Some going as far as to suggest that there are as many methods as scientists. I am convinced that there are broad, high‐level ideas that bind scientists together. Yet, anything more sharply delineated that could reasonably be entitled a scientific method is not logically or historically justified. If this criticism is accepted, then changes to the peer review process are not warranted. Furthermore, I would contend that the influence the reproducible research movement is having on the publishing of papers, and elsewhere, should be considerably curtailed. 相似文献
12.
在系统梳理“以刊评文”的由来和成因的基础上,提出了“以刊评文”的危害,包括:1)以SCI为导向,损伤科研生态;2)优秀科技论文外流,知识产权割让;3)科研方向跟从,应用价值不高;4)期刊竞争不平等,有碍国内科技期刊发展。阐释了以建立健全同行评议为核心的应对策略:1)建立小同行专家库,实行分类分领域评价;2)优化同行评议生态,提升专家评审素质和环境;3)建立国家开放知识库和预印本平台,推进开放评审与开放获取相结合的公开机制;4)建立有国际影响力的论文引文索引数据库,完善自身评价手段和工具。 相似文献
13.
We study how scholar collaboration varies across disciplines in science, social science, arts and humanities and the effects of author collaboration on impact and quality of co-authored papers. Impact is measured with the aid of citations collected by papers, while quality is determined by the judgements expressed by peer reviewers. To this end, we take advantage of the dataset provided by the first-ever national research assessment exercise of Italian universities, which involved 20 disciplinary areas, 102 research structures, 18,500 research products, and 6661 peer reviewers. Collaboration intensity neatly varies across disciplines: it is inescapable is most sciences and negligible in most humanities. We measured a general positive association between cardinality of the author set of a paper and citation count as well as peer quality of the contribution. The correlation is stronger when the affiliations of authors are heterogeneous. There exist, however, notable and interesting counter-examples. 相似文献
14.
科技期刊编辑学术素质在审稿中的具体表现 总被引：4，自引：0，他引：4
从审稿角度,对科技期刊编辑学术素质的具体表现进行分析,认为除了具有相关专业科研人员的知识、视野和能力外,具有较高学术素质的科技期刊编辑应该具备能准确选择审稿人、恰当地取舍审稿人意见、补充审稿人的遗漏三个方面的特质. 相似文献
15.
Blanca Rodríguez‐Bravo David Nicholas Eti Herman Chérifa Boukacem‐Zeghmouri Anthony Watkinson Jie Xu Abdullah Abrizah Marzena Świgoń 《Learned Publishing》2017,30(4):269-277
This paper presents selected findings from the first year of a 3‐year longitudinal study of early career researchers (ECRs), which sought to ascertain current and changing habits in scholarly communication. Specifically, the aims of the paper are to show: (1) how much experience and knowledge ECRs had of peer review – both as authors and as reviewers; (2) what they felt the benefits were and what suggestions they had for improvement; (3) what they thought of open peer review (OPR); and (4) who they felt should organize peer review. Data were obtained from 116 science and social science ECRs, most of whom had published and were subject to in‐depth interviews conducted face‐to‐face, via Skype, or over the telephone. An extensive literature review was also conducted to provide a context and supplementary data for the findings. The main findings were that: (1) most ECRS are well informed about peer review and generally like the experience, largely because of the learning experiences obtained; (2) they like blind double‐peer review, but would like some improvements, especially with regards to reviewer quality; (3) most are uncomfortable with the idea of OPR; and (4) most would like publishers to continue organizing peer review because of their perceived independence. 相似文献
16.
Susan van Rooyen 《Learned Publishing》1998,11(3):185-191
This paper examines the process of peer review in scientific publication. It outlines the background to Locknet (the international network for research into the preparation, publication and dissemination of health research). It looks at the objectives of the peer review process, ethical and quality issues raised, and the problems of improving the quality of peer review. It also briefly explores some of the research recently undertaken into peer review. 相似文献
17.
从原创、再创和补创角度,对科技期刊编辑创新性的层次性进行分析。认为:发现科技人才,是科技期刊编辑对社会和科技发展的原创性贡献;优化组合新的科技信息,是科技期刊编辑的再创性成果;编辑加工使稿件质量进一步提高,是科技期刊编辑在作者原创性劳动基础上的补充创新。 相似文献
18.
19.
20.
《Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services》2002,26(3):231-239
The BioOne database of scholarly journals in the biological and ecological sciences was established in the belief that broad and enduring access to scholarly literature is essential not just to the health of the scientific enterprise but also to the health of the wider society in which science is practiced. The prevailing model of profit-based journal publishing – in which high prices are impeding access – is harming the interests of the very scientists who provide its life-blood. The BioOne business model seeks to meet the interlocking goals of providing broad and enduring access, supporting the publishing enterprise of scholarly societies, and assuring that BioOne will keep pace with changes in technology and scientific communication. 相似文献