recentpopularlog in

tsuomela : peer-review   59

Rationalizing the unreasonable: there are no good academics in the EU – Ctrl+Alt+Dem
"Attracting external funding has become, everywhere, one of the main priorities of academics, and writing funding application has consequently also become one of their main tasks. The idea is “competitiveness”: quality will be evident when academics, individually or in teams, acquire funding after a strict and rigorously exclusive peer-review process."
academic  academia  funding  grants  lottery  peer-review  competition  evaluation  europe  incentives 
june 2016 by tsuomela
PRIMO; Peer-Reviewed Instructional Materials Online | Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL)
"PRIMO, a committee of the ACRL Instruction Section, promotes and shares peer-reviewed instructional materials created by librarians to teach people about discovering, accessing and evaluating information in networked environments. The PRIMO Committee hopes that publicizing selective, high quality resources will help librarians to respond to the educational challenges posed by still emerging digital technologies."
libraries  professional-association  instruction  peer-review  documentation  publishing 
april 2015 by tsuomela
The Paradox of the Proof | Project Wordsworth
"On August 31, 2012, Japanese mathematician Shinichi Mochizuki posted four papers on the Internet. The titles were inscrutable. The volume was daunting: 512 pages in total. The claim was audacious: he said he had proved the ABC Conjecture, a famed, beguilingly simple number theory problem that had stumped mathematicians for decades. Then Mochizuki walked away. He did not send his work to the Annals of Mathematics. Nor did he leave a message on any of the online forums frequented by mathematicians around the world. He just posted the papers, and waited."
mathematics  proof  warrant  community  peer-review  sociology  fame  prestige 
may 2013 by tsuomela
Yitang Zhang Proves 'Landmark' Theorem in Distribution of Prime Numbers | Simons Foundation
"On April 17, a paper arrived in the inbox of Annals of Mathematics, one of the discipline’s preeminent journals. Written by a mathematician virtually unknown to the experts in his field — a 50-something lecturer at the University of New Hampshire named Yitang Zhang — the paper claimed to have taken a huge step forward in understanding one of mathematics’ oldest problems, the twin primes conjecture. Editors of prominent mathematics journals are used to fielding grandiose claims from obscure authors, but this paper was different. Written with crystalline clarity and a total command of the topic’s current state of the art, it was evidently a serious piece of work, and the Annals editors decided to put it on the fast track."
mathematics  proof  warrant  community  peer-review  sociology  fame  prestige 
may 2013 by tsuomela
Lawmaker blasts colleague over perceived intrusion into social science funding | Inside Higher Ed
"The unusually public and nasty feud between the top two leaders of the House Science Committee is the latest flare-up of the recent political science wars that have put scholars in the discipline on the defensive. Congress voted last month to strip funding for most political science research from the budget of the National Science Foundation, and at a hearing this month, Republican lawmakers signaled their desire to examine how the NSF allocates funds for social and behavioral science studies."
nsf  funding  social-science  politicians  politics  research  science  government  peer-review 
april 2013 by tsuomela
Academic reforms: A four-part proposal - Brendan Nyhan
1. pass/fail first semester
2. pre-accepted article
3. replication audit
4. a frequent flier system for journals
academia  reform  peer-review  teaching 
april 2012 by tsuomela
Supplemental or detrimental? - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences
"The decision highlights a tension between the need for rigorous peer review of scientific research and the desire to provide as much data as possible to the scientific community.

"More data, in and of itself, is always a good thing -- if there aren't adverse effects," said Maunsell, who is also a neuroscientist at Harvard University. But peer review was becoming less effective because many reviewers failed to evaluate the supplemental materials, which the journal wasn't even required to provide, he explained. "We were taking a hit on peer review for something that wasn't formally our responsibility." "
science  peer-review  scholarly-communication  data  data-curation  publishing 
march 2011 by tsuomela
F1000 - Post publication peer review
The core service of Faculty of 1000 (F1000) identifies and evaluates the most important articles in biology and medical research publications. The selection process comprises a peer-nominated global 'Faculty' of the world's leading scientists and clinicians who rate the best of the articles they read and explain their importance.Launched in 2002, F1000 was conceived as a collaboration of 1000 international Faculty Members. Although the name stuck, the remit of our service continues to grow and the Faculty now numbers more than 10,000 experts whose evaluations form a fully searchable resource identifying the best research available. Faculty Members and their evaluations are organized into over 40 Faculties (subjects), which are further subdivided into over 300 Sections.
science  biology  bioscience  peer-review  summary 
february 2011 by tsuomela
PLoS ONE: A Reliability-Generalization Study of Journal Peer Reviews: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Inter-Rater Reliability and Its Determinants
"This paper presents the first meta-analysis for the inter-rater reliability (IRR) of journal peer reviews. IRR is defined as the extent to which two or more independent reviews of the same scientific document agree."
peer-review  publishing  academic  scholarly-communication 
december 2010 by tsuomela
Overcoming Bias : Peer Review Is Random
"Which academic articles get published in the more prestigious journals is a pretty random process."
peer-review  publishing  academic  scholarly-communication 
december 2010 by tsuomela
The short answer to Yglesias's question is "Yes." - Acephalous
he basic logic is that sharing work with the general public is a means of circumventing the "serious" peer review process, and as such is necessarily "unserious." The problem with that explanation is that the peer review process is itself a monument to unseriousness.
academia  publishing  popularize  reputation  peer-review 
september 2010 by tsuomela
SpringerLink -
The case of Dr. Hwang Woo Suk, the South Korean stem-cell researcher, is arguably the highest profile case in the history of research misconduct. The discovery of Dr. Hwang’s fraud led to fierce criticism of the peer review process (at Science). To find answers to the question of why the journal peer review system did not detect scientific misconduct (falsification or fabrication of data) not only in the Hwang case but also in many other cases, an overview is needed of the criteria that editors and referees normally consider when reviewing a manuscript. Do they at all look for signs of scientific misconduct when reviewing a manuscript?
science  research  misconduct  fraud  plagiarism  ethics  behavior  communication  peer-review  detection 
august 2010 by tsuomela
Problems with Psychology Research: Publishing - World of Psychology
The Association for Psychological Science latest issue of Perspectives on Psychological Science has a few interesting articles about the research and publishing side of psychology.
psychology  science  peer-review  publishing  academia 
february 2009 by tsuomela
The Air We Breathe: A Critical Look at Practices and Alternatives in the Peer-Review Process -- Wiley InterScience :: JOURNALS :: Perspectives on Psychological Science
Anonymous peer review has served as the bedrock of research dissemination in scientific psychology for decades and has only sporadically been questioned. However, other disciplines, such as biomedicine and physics, have found the traditional peer-review system to be wanting and have begun to test and try alternative practices. In this article, we survey criticisms of the traditional peer-review system and describe several alternatives in the interests of facilitating discussion and debate. We also consider why the natural sciences tend to employ fewer reviewers and have lower rejection rates than do the social sciences. Our two recommendations are that a serious discussion of problems and alternatives to peer review should be started at all levels of psychology and that a science of research communication should be a priority, with psychologists as part of its advance guard because of their relevant substantive and methodological knowledge.
psychology  academia  publishing  peer-review  standards 
february 2009 by tsuomela
The Back Page
The Future of Science: Building a Better Collective Memory By Michael A. Nielsen
sts  science  collaboration  online  culture  peer-review  peer-production 
december 2008 by tsuomela
Academic Productivity » The failure of open science
science was never that open to start with, but thanks to the communication needs of the time and the technology available people developed the peer review system. A system that is now hauting us, while top scientists disregard current technology (mostly web-based) that makes the current system look silly.
science  academic  open-science  norms  communication  publishing  peer-review 
august 2008 by tsuomela

Copy this bookmark:

to read