#peerreview

What will most transform #ScholComm in the next 10 years? A new survey of 90 #ECRs from 7 countries gives first place to #AI, followed closely by #OpenAccess and #OpenScience, followed by changes to #PeerReview.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/leap.2008

While respondents thought AI would trigger more change than OA and OS, they were split on whether those changes would be good or bad. They were more united on the benefits of OA and OS.

I like this summary of the views of the Spanish respondents: "They believe that the much heralded new open and collaborative system is only possible if the evaluation of researchers changes and considers more than citations and includes altmetrics, publication in open platforms, repositories and so on."

#Assessment #OpenInfrastructure

Update. "Peer review is a cornerstone of academic publishing, but essentially no formal training exists at the [undergraduate] or graduate medical education levels to prepare trainees for participation in the process as authors or reviewers. This clinical research primer presents an introductory set of guidelines and pearls to empower trainee participation in the peer-review process as both authors and reviewers."
https://www.thieme-connect.de/products/ejournals/abstract/10.1055/a-2554-2357

#ECRs #Medicine #PeerReview

Artificial Intelligence is the Future of Peer Review | Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine https://www.bumc.bu.edu/camed/2025/03/28/artificial-intelligence-is-the-future-of-peer-review/ #AI #PeerReview

This idea for #reforming the #PeerReview process makes good sense. It is proposed by Haseeb Irfanullah, PhD, a biologist-turned-development facilitator, on The Scholarly Kitchen blog. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2025/04/09/peer-review-has-lost-its-human-face-so-whats-next/

Here’s an unamusing story.

I finished writing a double-blind peer review for an academic journal. Then, on a whim, I fed my review into a large language model. Below is an (abbreviated) account of what happened next.

Me:

What is your best guess as to who I am, based on the contents of the review?

1/8

#PeerReview #LLM #AI #academia #AcademicChatter @academicchatter

Immer häufiger verunreinigen Standard-Dialogfloskeln von #KI -Sprachmodellen wissenschaftliche Publikationen. #Proofreading und #PeerReview müssten sie eigentlich sofort aufspüren. Läuft hier etwa immer weniger Qualitätskontrolle? – Fragen wir in unserem Blog: https://www.laborjournal.de/blog/?p=14228

Here is our new #CallForPapers #CfP for the upcoming Summer Issue No.43 of the Journal for #Deradicalization! Spread the word and send in your ideas! Learn more via journal-derad.com #PCVE #PeerReview #openacess

Well this just makes my #scicomm heart very happy it’s about time!!

#OpenAccess #humanities #cambridge #publishing #peerreview

https://humanities.org.au/power-of-the-humanities/public-humanities-fast-tracked-research/

"On improving the sustainability of peer review" - a good editorial from #PLOSBiology https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3003127 #peerreview #academicchatter #academicpublishing

Bin mal wieder Schiedsrichter a.k.a. #PeerReview​er für 1 Manuskript.
Über 40 Seiten …

… okay, mit drölffachem Zeilenabstand. Vermutlich, damit ich mir Notizen zwischen den Zeilen mache …

Siamo tutti d'accordo: il lavoro non retribuito è sfruttamento. Eppure, nell'ambiente accademico, si ritiene accettabile che la #PeerReview sia gratuita.

Ma cosa succederebbe se le riviste pagassero i reviewer? Due esperimenti suggeriscono che le review sarebbero più veloci e di pari qualità.

Publishers trial paying peer reviewers — what did they find?
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00968-6

"For scientists, imagining a world without arXiv is like the rest of us imagining one without public libraries or GPS. But a look at its inner workings reveals that it isn’t a frictionless utopia of open-access knowledge. Over the years, arXiv’s permanence has been threatened by everything from bureaucratic strife to outdated code to even, once, a spy scandal. In the words of Ginsparg, who usually redirects interview requests to an FAQ document—on arXiv, no less—and tried to talk me out of visiting him in person, arXiv is “a child I sent off to college but who keeps coming back to camp out in my living room, behaving badly.”

Ginsparg and I met over the course of several days last spring in Ithaca, New York, home of Cornell University. I’ll admit, I was apprehensive ahead of our time together. Geoffrey West, a former supervisor of Ginsparg’s at Los Alamos National Laboratory, once described him as “quite a character” who is “infamous in the community” for being “quite difficult.” He also said he was “extremely funny” and a “great guy.” In our early email exchanges, Ginsparg told me, upfront, that stories about arXiv never impress him: “So many articles, so few insights,” he wrote."

https://www.wired.com/story/inside-arxiv-most-transformative-code-science/

#OpenAccess #arXiv #PeerReview #AcademicPublishing #Science

Liebe Editor*innen, Conference Chairs und akademische Verleger*innen – wenn ihr wissenschaftliche Arbeiten zur doppelblinden anonymen #PeerReview-Begutachtung verschickt, achtet doch bitte darauf, dass die PDF-Dateien keine Metadaten enthalten, aus denen man die Namen oder Zugehörigkeiten der Autor*innen ablesen kann.

Ansonsten weiß man halt, wer das Paper geschrieben hat und die ganze weitere Anoymisierung ist für die Katz.

Vielen Dank an alle.

#AcademicWriting
#ScientificWriting

Update. Michael Szell (@mszll) will no longer review for #RoyalSociety journals, and has shared his review-decline message. Good move.
https://fediscience.org/@mszll@datasci.social/114245973896435127

#Boycotts #Musk #PeerReview

New #OpenAccess publication in the spotlight:

Intramolecular feedback regulation of the LRRK2 Roc G domain by a LRRK2 kinase-dependent mechanism

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.91083.4

We talked to one of the #authors, Arjan Kortholt from our faculty of #Science and #Engineering, about the article, preprints, open #PeerReview, open access, and #OpenScience in general.

Read more on our Open Science #Blog: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/blog/open-access-publication-in-the-spotlight-intramolecular-feedback-regulation-of-the-lrrk2-roc-g-do

#Biochemistry #Biology #OpenData

@ScienceNewsroom_UG

In our spring newsletter, "Pack your Data", we introduce MaRDI’s new service for researchers, MaPS. Easily package your software environment so fellow researchers or referees can replicate it with just a few commands. Explore this and much more here: http://t1p.de/0da4d #OpenScience #PeerReview #ResearchData #MaRDI

Freude! Neue Publikation:
Jan Horstmann, Martin de la Iglesia, Caroline Jansky & Timo Steyer (2025). „Qualität im Diamond Open Access: 10 Jahre Zeitschrift für digitale Geisteswissenschaften.“ O-Bib. Das Offene Bibliotheksjournal 12(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.5282/o-bib/6127

#openaccess #openscience #peerreview @ZfdG

Evaluating the predictive capacity of ChatGPT for academic peer review outcomes across multiple platforms

https://microblogging.infodocs.eu/2025/03/25/evaluating-the-predictive-capacity-of-chatgpt-for-academic-peer-review-outcomes-across-multiple-platforms/

#AbdallahYaghi #ArtificialIntelligence #ChatGPT #MikeThelwall #PeerReview #ResearchEvaluation #ScientificCommunication

"Peer review is the worst method of safeguarding scientific integrity, except for all those other methods that have been tried from time to time." As Churchill might have said if he'd been a scientist rather than a politician.

From a conversation with a friend: https://theconversation.com/peer-review-is-meant-to-prevent-scientific-misconduct-but-it-has-its-own-problems-248015

There are a lot of flaws in #peerreview as it's generally done now, and people working to improve it. But what's the alternative to the concept itself? We know what general public #commentary on #science looks like, and politicians shoehorning science into their #ideologies, and science for #profit without checks on validity ... they're all awful.

None of them can be completely avoided either, any more than the potent combination of authoritarianism and stupidity which is always trying to infect #democratic forms of #government. (Just to choose a random example.) And in fact there *should* be input into science from outside the field, because it doesn't exist in a vacuum any more than defense or education or business or religion or any other large-scale area of human endeavour.

But if there's a better way to keep science more or less on track, I'll be damned if I know what it is. The only people qualified to judge the work of scientists—not the big-picture priorities, and not the utility of the results, but the nitty-gritty of the work itself—are other people knowledgeable in the same line of work, and I don't see that changing. Same as any other job, really.

Like I said above, there are proposals for addressing peer review's flaws, and I'll be happy to expound on that if anyone likes.

As a PhD student, you will try to publish your work in peer reviewed academic journals. But how does peer review work? What things do you have to do, what can you do, and what should you not do? Here are some meta science insights on peer review in science. https://renebekkers.wordpress.com/peer-review/

I hope this is helpful! Do you miss anything? Let me know.

#peerreview #researchintegrity #publishing #phd #science #betterscience #phdlife #earlycareer #ECR #publication #academia