Science periodicals in the nineteenth and twenty-first centuries

Shuttleworth, Sally; Charnley, Berris

doi:10.1098/rsnr.2016.0026

“…However, much less research critically explores the diversity of selection of peer review processes in the mid- to late-20th century. Indeed, there seems to be a remarkable discrepancy between the historical work we do have ( Baldwin, 2017a ; Gupta, 2016 ; Rennie, 2016 ; Shuttleworth & Charnley, 2016 ) and apparent community views that “we have always done it this way,” alongside what sometimes feels like a wilful effort to ignore the current diversity of practice. The result of this is an overall lack of evidence about the mechanics of peer review (e.g., time taken to review, conflict resolution, demographics of engaged parties, acceptance rates, quality of reviews, inherent biases, impact of referee training), both in terms of the traditional process and ongoing innovations, that obfuscates our understanding of the functionality and effectiveness of the present system ( Jefferson et al , 2007 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…“Peer review”, during this time, was more of a civil, collegial discussion in the form of letters between authors and the publication editors ( Baldwin, 2017b ). Social pressures of generating new audiences for research, as well as new technological developments such as the steam-powered press, were also crucial ( Shuttleworth & Charnley, 2016 ). From these early developments, the process of independent review of scientific reports by acknowledged experts, besides the editors themselves, gradually emerged ( Csiszar, 2016 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review

Tennant

¹

,

Dugan

²

,

Graziotin

³

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peer review of research articles is a core part of our scholarly communication system. In spite of its importance, the status and purpose of peer review is often contested. What is its role in our modern digital research and communications infrastructure? Does it perform to the high standards with which it is generally regarded? Studies of peer review have shown that it is prone to bias and abuse in numerous dimensions, frequently unreliable, and can fail to detect even fraudulent research. With the advent of web technologies, we are now witnessing a phase of innovation and experimentation in our approaches to peer review. These developments prompted us to examine emerging models of peer review from a range of disciplines and venues, and to ask how they might address some of the issues with our current systems of peer review. We examine the functionality of a range of social Web platforms, and compare these with the traits underlying a viable peer review system: quality control, quantified performance metrics as engagement incentives, and certification and reputation. Ideally, any new systems will demonstrate that they out-perform and reduce the biases of existing models as much as possible. We conclude that there is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages. We also propose a novel hybrid platform model that could, at least partially, resolve many of the socio-technical issues associated with peer review, and potentially disrupt the entire scholarly communication system. Success for any such development relies on reaching a critical threshold of research community engagement with both the process and the platform, and therefore cannot be achieved without a significant change of incentives in research environments.

show abstract

“…“Peer review”, during this time, was more of a civil, collegial discussion in the form of letters between authors and the publication editors ( Baldwin, 2017b). Social pressures of generating new audiences for research, as well as new technological developments such as the steam-powered press, were also crucial ( Shuttleworth & Charnley, 2016). From these early developments, the process of independent review of scientific reports by acknowledged experts, besides the editors themselves, gradually emerged ( Csiszar, 2016).…”

Section: 01 Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review

Dugan

¹

,

Graziotin

²

,

Jacques

³

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peer review of research articles is a core part of our scholarly communication system. In spite of its importance, the status and purpose of peer review is often contested. What is its role in our modern digital research and communications infrastructure? Does it perform to the high standards with which it is generally regarded? Studies of peer review have shown that it is prone to bias and abuse in numerous dimensions, frequently unreliable, and can fail to detect even fraudulent research. With the advent of web technologies, we are now witnessing a phase of innovation and experimentation in our approaches to peer review. These developments prompted us to examine emerging models of peer review from a range of disciplines and venues, and to ask how they might address some of the issues with our current systems of peer review. We examine the functionality of a range of social Web platforms, and compare these with the traits underlying a viable peer review system: quality control, quantified performance metrics as engagement incentives, and certification and reputation. Ideally, any new systems will demonstrate that they out-perform and reduce the biases of existing models as much as possible. We conclude that there is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages. We also propose a novel hybrid platform model that could, at least partially, resolve many of the socio-technical issues associated with peer review, and potentially disrupt the entire scholarly communication system. Success for any such development relies on reaching a critical threshold of research community engagement with both the process and the platform, and therefore cannot be achieved without a significant change of incentives in research environments.

show abstract

“…By the mid-twentieth century, the long-term boom in science journals (there were already 10,000 by 1900) 18 was unabated, keeping pace with the growth in academic science and the proliferation of fields. Photographic technologies remained central, but visual content was diverse and included graphs and early digital images.…”

Section: Books In Briefmentioning

confidence: 99%