Blog
About

Diverse Approaches to Peer Review

Portrait of Albert Einstein in a museum. Source: pixabay.com

Peer Review Week, Sep 10-15, 2018

Peer Review Week is a global event celebrating the role of peer review in maintaining scientific quality. This year marks the event’s fourth anniversary of bringing together researchers, institutions, and organizations committed to the message that good peer review is crucial to scholarly communications. This year Peer Review Week on the topic of diversity aims:

  • To emphasize the central role peer review plays in scholarly communication
  • To showcase the work of editors and reviewers
  • To share research and advance best practices
  • To highlight the latest innovation and applications.
    (Source: https://peerreviewweek.wordpress.com/)

Although peer review itself is not as young as the week-long event organized in its celebration, it is still a relatively new invention. Albert Einstein published his original papers in non-peer-reviewed German journals through 1933, most famously in the Annalen der Physik. Max Planck, one of the journal’s editors of the time, described his editorial philosophy as:

To shun much more the reproach of having suppressed strange opinions than that of having been too gentle in evaluating them.

After moving to the US, Einstein was so shocked that his paper submitted to the Physical Review in 1936 was met with negative criticism that he decided not to publish with them at all. Ironically, the paper in question hypothesized that gravitational waves do not exist. In retrospect, peer review saved Einstein the controversy and the embarrassment that would have ensued if he had published his original article.

Einstein’s anecdotal experience with non-/peer review journals both points to the necessity of peer review in quality scholarly publishing and to the danger of excluding scientific arguments from the academic narrative. ScienceOpen bridges the gap between these two opposite approaches by making both preprints and peer-reviewed scholarly articles accessible through its discovery environment with a unified review framework for researchers to evaluate results.

The “preprint” enables researchers to openly share their results with peers at an early stage and still publish the peer-reviewed final version of their findings in a journal of their choice. To help the researcher find preprints or concentrate only on peer-reviewed literature, searches on ScienceOpen can be filtered to view only preprints or may exclude preprints. We are currently tracking preprints from arXiv, bioRxiv, PeerJ, Preprints.org, ChemRxiv, and the Open Science Framework repositories.

Once a preprint has been published, ScienceOpen offers a full set of tools to peer-review and curate the content. Users can organize and manage the review entirely on their own. Found an interesting preprint, but want an expert opinion before using it in your research? Invite a reviewer! Researchers can either review an article themselves or invite an expert colleague to do so with one click of a button on every article page. Reviewers currently need a minimum of 5 records attached to their ORCID. ScienceOpen encourages everyone to openly participate in this process, thereby contributing to the diversification of expert opinions on a specific topic.

The fact that a paper has been published, and therefore peer-reviewed, does not mean that the research should stop. ScienceOpen enables post-publication peer review across 45 million article records, in the form of final-version comments. Article reviews, modeled after book reviews, are published with the author’s name and should provide orientation and an evaluation of the research for readers. Peer review as an open dialogue between experts actively contextualizes the research into ongoing scientific debates and helps researchers gain a deeper insight into a specific topic.

In order to fully recognize the contribution of reviewers and ensure maximal discoverability for authors, ScienceOpen integrates seamlessly with Crossref and ORCID. ScienceOpen has linked users with ORCID from the beginning. Recently, ScienceOpen has been actively participating in Crossref’s development of peer review content registration. In their recent press release, ‘Crossref facilitates the use of essential peer review information for scholarly communications‘, Crossref emphasized the importance of persistent records for peer review and commended ScienceOpen on successfully implementing metadata that enriches “scholarly discussion, reviewer accountability, transparency, and peer review analysis”. Stephanie Dawson, CEO of ScienceOpen, added that rich metadata is key to discoverability – for research articles, preprints, books, conference proceedings, and now for peer review reports. Crossref is making these reviews easier to identify and find, which translates into “more impact for researchers and publishers”. Anyone can retrieve the data necessary for their integration and analysis. As the Crossref press release concludes, rich metadata helps institutions and researchers build a better picture around the role of peer review in scholarly communications as a whole, not only in terms of identifying and assessing their own contributions.

Peer review is necessary to ensure quality scientific publishing, but it still needs to be honed to the greater benefit of the researcher, the scientific community, and ultimately the whole society. ScienceOpen contributes to this goal by integrating rich metadata, featuring preprints, and enabling post publication peer review. We look forward to hearing additional potential solutions to the diversification of the peer review process for a greater impact during #PeerReviewWeek18!

In:  Aggregation  

Scholarly communications knowledge base on ScienceOpen

At ScienceOpen, we are constantly evolving to meet the needs of the ever-changing scholarly communication ecosystem.

To keep you all up-to-date about the latest research advancements in the field, we’ve built an easily accessible and searchable scholarly communications knowledge base, which we call a super collection! This knowledge base covers different aspects of the field, such as:

Scholarly communication super collection on ScienceOpen

A simple search for “scholarly communication” on our platform also reveals 150 Open Access papers on the topic!

Our recent partnership with IOS Press allows us to greatly expand this knowledge base. Their flagship Open Access journal, Information Services and Use, is now indexed on ScienceOpen. The journal covers a wide range of topics around scholarly publishing and open research, and facilitates discussion on the key aspects of the field. Articles cover a whole new set of issues about how to maximize the accessibility and potential of research data.

Below you can find a selection of some of the most exciting topics and articles.

  • Key infrastructure for a modern scholarly communication environment

Transforming a research paper into a rich internet publication

Supporting a Passion for New Ideas through Open APIs

Researchers of Tomorrow: The research behaviour of Generation Y doctoral students

  • The transformation of journal publishing into a Web 2.0 context

The transformation of scientific journal publishing: Open access after the Berlin 12 Conference

Shared service components infrastructure for enriching the user experience in electronic publications

  • Newly emerging archiving practices and platforms in the era of digital publishing

Archives information publishing new design in post-custodial regime: The National Archives Experience Digital Vaults

Accessibility and self-archiving of conference articles: A study on a selection of Swedish institutional repositories

Metadata for Big Data: A preliminary investigation of metadata quality issues in research data repositories

  • Evaluating national and international Open Access policies

Accessibility, sustainability, excellence: The UK approach to Open Access

Open Access improves returns to public research funding: A perspective from Germany

The OpenAIRE2020 FP7 Post-Grant Open Access Pilot: Implementing a European-wide funding initiative for Open Access publishing costs

  • How open principles are transplanted into practices

PlosOpenR – Exploring FP7 funded PLOS publications

Open Access monographic publishing in the humanities

  • Accelerating research transparency

Creative commons: A convergence model between the ideal of commons and the possibilities of creation in contemporary times, opposed to copyright impediments

Where does the buck stop? Research ethics and publishing

Cloudy, increasingly FAIR; revisiting the FAIR Data guiding principles for the European Open Science Cloud

The importance of being aware of these newly emerging directions and sustainable practices in scholarly communication is unquestionable. It gives you powerful tools for communicating your research more effectively and thus to boost your academic career and even your well-being in academia.

If you don’t want to miss a single article that might be of interest for you from this gigacorpus, we keep you up to date by constantly integrating newly published content. Follow the collection, or create saved searches to ma make this even easier!

scholarly communication

 

 

 

In:  Other  

ScienceOpen Collecting and Connecting with ORCID

ORCID have recognised the discovery and networking platform ScienceOpen for leadership in integrating their services as part of their Collect and Connect program.

Under ORCID’s mantra of “Enter once, reuse often”, Collect and Connect is designed for member organizations to collect, display, connect and synchronize data between research information systems. This was developed to streamline the integration process across a range of research systems, funders, and publishers.

ORCID has been at the foundation of ScienceOpen since inception, enabling verified users to integrate their published content, build collections, and perform post-publication peer review across publishers and journals for free.

CEO of ScienceOpen, Stephanie Dawson, said “We are delighted to be among the first recognized by ORCID as part of their Collect and Connect Program. ORCID has been essential to our development, and together we will continue to build a robust scholarly infrastructure for all stakeholders.”

ScienceOpen features alongside other leaders, including eLife, Overleaf, and Editorial Manager, all committed to creating valid assertions about scholarly connectivity in a reliable, trustworthy, and transparent way.

Laure Haak, Executive Director of ORCID, said “ScienceOpen has been a huge supporter of ORCID – both by demonstrating in practice how iDs enable profile platforms and also through your incredible researcher engagement activities.  Our badges are a small but important official acknowledgement for your actions. Thank you for your leadership in the open research community!”

In:  ORCID  

ORCID integration at ScienceOpen

ORCID integration has been at the heart of our publishing system since our inception. We like to think that this demonstrates that ScienceOpen was already thinking way ahead of the curve for the future of publishing, and recognising the importance of infrastructure and the value of unique identifiers. ORCID is now a major part of the scholarly communications infrastructure, and becoming more so with each passing day.

At ScienceOpen, registration with us requires registration with ORCID. In fact, if you register with us, we will automatically provide you the options for registering with ORCID.

Why is this important?

At ScienceOpen, we have always supported the use of ORCID within our services. Membership at ScienceOpen can be updated directly using your ORCID profile, providing seamless integration of the two.

To comment, review and rate articles, we require an ORCID along with membership at ScienceOpen. If you have more than 5 articles within your ORCID profile, you’ll gain Expert member status with us, and free reign of services! We feel this is important to maintain a high standard of quality for our peer review services. This isn’t to say that those without ORCID wouldn’t be great referees, it’s just that this is an explicit minimum standard.

Here’s a little table to help make this a little easier to understand. We’re evolving all the time to adapt to the needs of the research community, so please let us know if there’s anything we can do to enhance our services!

Continue reading “ORCID integration at ScienceOpen”