22 pages, presented at ODOK '03 in Salzburg, Austria, September 23-26, 2003 (see http://voeb.uibk.ac.at/odok2003/svozil.pdf for a German version), and at the INST conference "The Unifying Aspects of Cultures", Vienna, November 7-9, 2003
发表信息：
TRANS. Internet-Zeitschrift für Kulturwissenschaften. No. 15/2003. WWW: http://www.inst.at/trans/15Nr/03_2/svozil15.htm
Scientific publishing is in a transition between the old paper-bound, static forms and the new electronic media with its interactive, dynamic possibilities. This takes place in the context of imploding library budgets and exploding magazine costs. The scientists as authors, reviewers and editors of scientific journals are exposed to an increased pressure by the their administrations and the public towards quantification, objectification and certification of scientific achievements. The ``publication roulette'' resulting from low-quality editorial procedures often amounts to malign censorship, which not only is experienced as a frustration by the authors, but is also delaying and hampering the progress of science. It also leads to a waste of funds under the cover of pseudo-objectivity and pseudo-legitimacy of financial decisions. Different solutions are outlined and discussed. As concerns scientific publishing, an e-print service should be established, which, in continuation of existing e-servers such as arxiv.org, is operated either directly by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, or by an international consortium. In order to become generally accepted by the scientists, certification criteria must be provided, which would make it possible to successfully pursue a scientific career besides the traditional peer reviewed print publications.
Competitive allocation of research funding is a major mechanism within the science system. It is fundamentally based on the idea of peer review. Peer review is central in project selection as peers are considered to be in a unique position to identify and select the best and most innovative researchers and research projects. In this study, we assess the practice of peer-review based project selection. The basic question is "do the best researchers get the funding"? In other words, do peer review based quality indicators predict success in receiving funding? The next question to be answered is …
Institute for Biocomputation and Physics of Complex Systems, University of Zaragoza（萨拉戈萨大学复杂系统生物计算与物理研究所）；Department of Theoretical Physics, Faculty of Sciences, University of Zaragoza（萨拉戈萨大学理学院理论物理系）
Peer review is the backbone of modern science. F1000Prime is a post-publication peer review system of the biomedical literature (papers from medical and biological journals). This study is concerned with the inter-rater reliability and convergent validity of the peer recommendations formulated in the F1000Prime peer review system. The study is based on around 100,000 papers with recommendations from Faculty members. Even if intersubjectivity plays a fundamental role in science, the analyses of the reliability of the F1000Prime peer review system show a rather low level of agreement between Fac…
We examine selected aspects of peer review and suggest possible improvements. To this end, we analyse a dataset containing information about 300 papers submitted to the Biochemistry and Biotechnology section of the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society. After separating the peer review process into stages that each review has to go through, we use a weighted directed graph to describe it in a probabilistic manner and test the impact of some modifications of the editorial policy on the efficiency of the whole process.
Peer review is an integral component of contemporary science. While peer review focuses attention on promising and interesting science, it also encourages scientists to pursue some questions at the expense of others. Here, we use ideas from forecasting assessment to examine how two modes of peer review -- ex ante review of proposals for future work and ex post review of completed science -- motivate scientists to favor some questions instead of others. Our main result is that ex ante and ex post peer review push investigators toward distinct sets of scientific questions. This tension arises be…
Peer review is a process designed to produce a fair assessment of research quality before the publication of scholarly work in a journal. Demographics, nepotism, and seniority have been all shown to affect reviewer behavior suggesting the most common, single-blind review method (or the less common open review method) might be biased. A survey of current research indicates that double-blind review offers a solution to many biases stemming from author's gender, seniority, or location without imposing any significant downsides.
The paper describes a potential platform to facilitate academic peer review with emphasis on early-stage research. This platform aims to make peer review more accurate and timely by rewarding reviewers on the basis of peer prediction algorithms. The algorithm uses a variation of Peer Truth Serum for Crowdsourcing (Radanovic et al., 2016) with human raters competing against a machine learning benchmark. We explain how our approach addresses two large productive inefficiencies in science: mismatch between research questions and publication bias. Better peer review for early research creates addi…
While ancient scientists often had patrons to fund their work, peer review of proposals for the allocation of resources is a foundation of modern science. A very common method is that proposals are evaluated by a small panel of experts (due to logistics and funding limitations) nominated by the grant-giving institutions. The expert panel process introduces several issues - most notably: 1) biases introduced in the selection of the panel. 2) experts have to read a very large number of proposals. Distributed Peer Review promises to alleviate several of the described problems by distributing the …
The advancement of various fields of science depends on the actions of individual scientists via the peer review process. The referees' work patterns and stochastic nature of decision making both relate to the particular features of refereeing and to the universal aspects of human behavior. Here, we show that the time a referee takes to write a report on a scientific manuscript depends on the final verdict. The data is compared to a model, where the review takes place in an ongoing competition of completing an important composite task with a large number of concurrent ones - a Deadline -effect…
This is a Commentary in $Physics~Today$ on the novel review process developed by the biology journal $eLife$, with the suggestion that it be adopted by physics journals.
Peer review is a cornerstone of modern scientific endeavor. However, there is growing consensus that several limitations of the current peer review system, from lack of incentives to reviewers to lack of transparency, risks to undermine its benefits. Here, we introduce the PRINCIPIA (http://www.principia.network/) framework for peer-review of scientific outputs (e.g., papers, grant proposals or patents). The framework allows key players of the scientific ecosystem -- including existing publishing groups -- to create and manage peer-reviewed journals, by building a free market for reviews and p…
The number of scientific publications is constantly rising, increasing the strain on the review process. The number of submissions is actually higher, as each manuscript is often reviewed several times before publication. To face the deluge of submissions, top journals reject a considerable fraction of manuscripts without review, potentially declining manuscripts with merit. The situation is frustrating for authors, reviewers and editors alike. Recently, several editors wrote about the ``tragedy of the reviewer commons', advocating for urgent corrections to the system. Almost every scientist h…
Opthof and Leydesdorff [arXiv:1102.2569] reanalyze data reported by Van Raan [arXiv:physics/0511206] and conclude that there is no significant correlation between on the one hand average citation scores measured using the CPP/FCSm indicator and on the other hand the quality judgment of peers. We point out that Opthof and Leydesdorff draw their conclusions based on a very limited amount of data. We also criticize the statistical methodology used by Opthof and Leydesdorff. Using a larger amount of data and a more appropriate statistical methodology, we do find a significant correlation between t…
This paper appraises the concordance between bibliometrics and peer review, by drawing evidence from the data of two experiments realized by the Italian governmental agency for research evaluation. The experiments were performed for validating the dual system of evaluation, consisting in the interchangeable use of bibliometyrics and peer review, adopted by the agency in the research assessment exercises. The two experiments were based on stratified random samples of journal articles. Each article was scored by bibliometrics and by peer review. The degree of concordance between the two evaluati…
A semi-supervised model of peer review is introduced that is intended to overcome the bias and incompleteness of traditional peer review. Traditional approaches are reliant on human biases, while consensus decision-making is constrained by sparse information. Here, the architecture for one potential improvement (a semi-supervised, human-assisted classifier) to the traditional approach will be introduced and evaluated. To evaluate the potential advantages of such a system, hypothetical receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for both approaches will be assessed. This will provide more sp…
With the volume of manuscripts submitted for publication growing every year, the deficiencies of peer review (e.g. long review times) are becoming more apparent. Editorial strategies, sets of guidelines designed to speed up the process and reduce editors workloads, are treated as trade secrets by publishing houses and are not shared publicly. To improve the effectiveness of their strategies, editors in small publishing groups are faced with undertaking an iterative trial-and-error approach. We show that Cartesian Genetic Programming, a nature-inspired evolutionary algorithm, can dramatically i…
