Copy
View this email in your browser
ISSN 2318-1958

Issue 22, May 12th, 2015

Enhancing peer review: guides, tutorials and good practice manuals


The validation of scientific reports before publication is an established practice, whose effectiveness and importance is recognized by authors, publishers, funding agencies and scientific societies around the world, in order to ensure the originality, quality, reliability, integrity and consistency of scholarly literature. What has long been the exclusive prerogative of publishers and editors now relies on innovative initiatives by organizations and societies dedicated to understand and improve the process. [Read more]

Highlights

Peer review: The pleasure of publishing – originally published in the journal eLife in January/2015
When assessing manuscripts eLife editors look for a combination of rigour and insight, along with results and ideas that make other researchers think differently about their subject. [Read more]

eLife: an example of improved peer review
The online open access peer reviewed journal eLife publishes articles in biomedicine and life sciences. The nonprofit publication emerged from the ideas of its founders to create a publication model that met the needs of the academic community regarding editorial policy. The journal relies on a staff of Senior Editors made of renowned, experienced researchers, which are active in their fields. Its peer review process is innovative and aims to ensure clear assessment goals as well as constructive and consolidated comments made by Editor and reviewers. [Read more]

Peer-review as a research topic in its own right
Over the last decade, the topic of scholarly communication has attracted the interest of researchers in all fields of knowledge. One of the most studied topics is the assessment of peer review, including its qualitative and quantitative aspects, its ability to detect and curb unethical practices, the appreciation of its methods of assessment and how technology can facilitate and improve the process, while meeting the challenges brought about by the age of digital publishing. [Read more]

Peer review: bad with it, worse without it
Peer review is seen as one of the pillars – if not the most important – of scientific communication. Despite the difficulties in going through the review process, the authors believe that the process improves the quality of the manuscript, and they want to be published on refereed journals that have a sound evaluation mechanism. Recent cases of attempted manipulation of the peer review process by fake reviews concern the international scientific community, however, it does not undermine its credibility and trust. The peer review crisis can be an opportunity to strengthen and improve the process. [Read more]

The use of research metrics is diversified in the Leiden Manifesto
Research evaluation in recent decades has been increasingly conducted through metrics and indicators, which are gradually replacing the assessment by peers. Researchers gathered at the 19th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (STI 2014) held in September 2014 in Leiden, Netherlands, in order to advise on the use of metrics in research assessment drafted a set of rules – the Leiden Manifesto. Know its guidelines. [Read more]
Share
Tweet
+1
Forward to Friend
 

Creative Commons License

The content on this newsletter is is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.