Originally published at the THL blog: http://wp.me/p1v84h-FY
This week I’m doing a little something special. Rather than the usual overview of exciting hashtag conversations (which I’ll return to next week), I wanted to focus on the topic of peer review. This is getting a lot of buzz online, and there is so much content it can easily justify an entire post just for this topic.
The video for “Reimagining peer-review”,
@dwhly‘s keynote presentation at iEvoBio 2012, is up on our first blog entry. Tx again@hlapp— Hypothes.is (@hypothes_is) August 9, 2012
“We propose a new system for peer review. Submitted manuscripts are made immediately available online.” blogs.plos.org/biologue/2012/…
— Quoc-Dien Trinh, MD (@qdtrinh) August 3, 2012
Fascinating account of “forensic” image checking done routinely at EMBO journal (via retractionwatch) retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/08/01/tra…
#open#peerreview— Bernd-Chr. Kämper (@bckaemper) August 3, 2012
in parts already done at
@eurogeosciences#OA journals RT@figshare Openly Streamlining Peer Review: blogs.plos.org/biologue/2012/…— O. Bo (@geschichtenpost) August 3, 2012
Peer-review me: Assessing the influence of social networking on influenza vaccination amongst patients in an urb… bit.ly/RnuPrj
— J Med Internet Res (@JMedInternetRes) August 3, 2012
Tee hee. RT
@psychosyntax Peer-review of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. departmentofomnishambles.tumblr.com/post/284919498…— Sarah Emily Duff (@sarahemilyduff) August 3, 2012
A part of me dies whenever a reviewer’s ‘major concern’ is asking what wld happen if we had asked diff Q’s and done diff expts
#peerreview— Chris Chambers (@chrisdc77) August 2, 2012
Why BEST papers failed to pass peer review: Ross McKitrick was a peer review referee for Muller’s study — He got… bit.ly/Q61jsK
— Marc Morano (@ClimateDepot) July 30, 2012
Pancreatic cancer bill threatens the integrity of NCI peer review system. Open access issue of TCL: cancerletter.com/articles/20120…
— The Cancer Letter(@TheCancerLetter) August 3, 2012
Peer review is vital but its closed nature belongs to a bygone age. It’s time to open up bit.ly/NljVzT
— LSEImpactBlog (@LSEImpactBlog) August 7, 2012
@lseimpactblog At GP we offer ‘Essays’ as a format to bridge peer review and online publishing – globalpolicyjournal.com/blog— Global Policy (@Global_Policy) August 7, 2012
Some more of peer-review’s greatest mistakesbit.ly/Mp7vHn by
@miketaylor— Bora Zivkovic (@BoraZ) August 7, 2012
New on SV-POW: Some More of Peer-Review’s Greatest Mistakes svpow.com/2012/08/06/som… See pt1: Where Peer-Review Went Wrong svpow.com/2012/08/05/whe…
— Mike Taylor (@MikeTaylor) August 7, 2012
Improving peer review ow.ly/cIcFJ from
@plos— Society of Biology (@Society_Biology) August 3, 2012
“Berkeley scientist publishes research without peer review, sparks controversy” ow.ly/cGJ1a
#peerreview— PeerEvaluation.org (@PeerEvaluation) August 3, 2012
In Praise of Peer Review – A Personal Perspective goo.gl/fb/A2Dx2
— Scholarly Kitchen (@scholarlykitchn) August 1, 2012
How to
#review a#scientific paper? Reviewing someone else’s work may seem relatively easy. But is it really?ow.ly/bXt7k— Springer AuthorZone (@AuthorZone) July 31, 2012
Why BEST papers failed to pass peer review: Ross McKitrick was a peer review referee for Muller’s study — He got… bit.ly/Q61jsK
— Marc Morano (@ClimateDepot) July 30, 2012
j.mp/PqMxZp Peer review is dead. Long live peer review! Of the open kind
#openscience— Jon Tennant (@Protohedgehog) August 1, 2012
The Science Creative Quarterly » MOTHER GOOSE AND THE SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW PROCESS.: Tags: … bit.ly/QBNfrc
— Bonnie Swoger (@bonnieswoger) August 7, 2012
Excellent analysis of the future of scientific publishing in
@thescientistllc. Peer review process critiqued. Surprise! bit.ly/NPu8dM— robynsussel (@robynsussel) August 9, 2012
State Department Initiative to Facilitate Access to US Scientific Peer Review Processes: ow.ly/cQyHc
— PeerEvaluation.org (@PeerEvaluation) August 9, 2012
Peer-review 2.0? Sympoze sympoze.com? PeerageofSci? peerageofscience.org Facultyof1000? f1000.com hypothes.is
— Dean Giustini (@giustini) August 9, 2012
useful list of predatory open-access academic journals (no reputation, dubious peer review, “pay to play”) metadata.posterous.com/83235355
— Andrew R. Schrock (@aschrock) August 9, 2012
As a
#peerreviewer, it is important to have a solid understanding of#statistics. Why? ow.ly/bXyMQ#Springer#AuthorAcademy— Springer AuthorZone (@AuthorZone) August 9, 2012
.
@whereisdaz agree Geoff Davies: peer review doesn’t work for innovation. Need system that’s not afraid of “failure” or breaking moulds— Steve Keen (@ProfSteveKeen) August 9, 2012
@profstevekeen Agree, conservative nature of peer review is a big problem bit.ly/Pezq1j— Dr Darren Saunders (@whereisdaz) August 9, 2012
Notice that tracking a hashtag may lead you to discovering the names of persons who are especially expert in that area, such as Ivan Oransky on the topic of peer review, problems with the current model of science publication, and future directions for science publishing.
RT
@protohedgehog: The finalists for Elsevier’s future of peer-review competition are now available online peerreviewfuture.com— Ivan Oransky (@ivanoransky) August 5, 2012
Plagiarism costs Canadian lab-on-a-chip researcher a paper — in his own journal bit.ly/N4qnl6
— Ivan Oransky (@ivanoransky) August 8, 2012
Pharmacology journal expresses concern over “similar, but updated” review bit.ly/N9ODlR
— Ivan Oransky (@ivanoransky) August 9, 2012
Pingback: Global warming critic Richard A. Muller admits he was wrong - Page 19