Peer review: still king in the digital age

Nicholas, David; Watkinson, Anthony; Jamali, Hamid R.; Herman, Eti; Tenopir, Carol; Volentine, Rachel; Allard, Suzie; Levine, Kenneth J.

doi:10.1087/20150104

Cited by 178 publications

(133 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

126

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…2 The overarching finding is that despite the global march of Web 2.0, altmetrics, and social media, some things in the scholarly world are seemingly more resistant to change: trustworthiness and reputation appear to be two such cases. Thus, in the case of reputation, despite the fact that in today's Science 2.0 scholarly environment many more scholarly activities (e.g.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, recent research shows that this practice, if anything, is becoming more embedded in the highly competitive, global digital environment in which scholars fi nd themselves. 2 Everyone, it seems, is trying to establish and enhance their global digital presence. Clearly, such a narrow view of reputation marginalizes all the other scholarly activities (see Table 1 for an abbreviated list and Appendix 1 for a comprehensive list) and this skews scholarship and academia.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

New ways of building, showcasing, and measuring scholarly reputation

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

New ways of building, showcasing, and measuring scholarly reputation

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This belief is verified by a recent survey study: "peer review is still the most trustworthy characteristic of all." (Nicholas, et al, 2015) The problems in scientific publishing, however, are real and serious in disciplines such as medicine. During one investigation, a single scientist's 172 papers out of 212 papers were found to be "bogus, 126 of which 'were totally fabricated.'"…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open Peer Review: An Innovation in Scientific Publishing

wang¹,

Rath²,

Deike³

et al.

iConference 2016 Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research observes the emerging open peer review journals. In scientific publishing, transparency in peer review is a growing topic of interest for online journals. The traditional blind refereeing process has been criticized for lacking transparency. Although the idea of open peer review (OPR) has been explored since 1980s, it is only in this decade that OPR journals are born. Towards a more open publishing model, the peer review process--once accessible only to the editors and referees-is now available to public. The published article and its review history are being integrated into one entity; readers can submit or post comments to extend the peer process. This preliminary study observed four pioneer OPR journals representing pre-publication OPR and post-publication OPR. Data collection focuses on publication's lifecycle from its submission to peer approval. Preliminary results include comparisons of the level of openness and nature of interactions during refereeing process.

show abstract

“…The core aim of this research was investigating whether and, to greatest extent, how interactive internet tools affect the modes of the scholarly practices, especially for as much as validation and dissemination practices are concerned. Relevant literature includes [1][2][3][4][5][7][8][9][10][11][12], based upon the results of surveys among researchers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Professional social networks among Italian astrophysicists. Prospective changes in validation and dissemination practices?

Marra

2016

ISU

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In recent years, the influences of the main web 2.0 tools on the scholarly communication cycle have been at heart of significant surveys. Awareness and/or adoption rates of these tools were a relevant aspect of this subject.In a very similar perspective, the present study addresses the Italian astrophysical research community. An online questionnaire was created in late September 2014 for the researchers working at the Italian National Institute for Astrophysics. 117 astrophysicists have revealed their attitudes and behaviour towards some major professional social networks (ResearchGate, LinkedIn, Academia) as well as their opinions about aspects of the main validation practices. The results show that professional social networks have been adopted widely (∼66%). ResearchGate results to be the most popular tool, followed by LinkedIn. The respondents' opinions about different types of peer-review show this community is only partly satisfied with single-blind peer-review; nevertheless, the set of scholarly values and communication practices remains rather traditional and social networks result to be used chiefly for enhancing research output dissemination and researchers' availability on the web.

show abstract

Peer review: still king in the digital age

Abstract: ABSTRACT. The article presents one of the main fi ndings of an international study of 4,000 academic researchers that examined how trustworthiness is

Cited by 178 publications

References 8 publications

New ways of building, showcasing, and measuring scholarly reputation

New ways of building, showcasing, and measuring scholarly reputation

Open Peer Review: An Innovation in Scientific Publishing

Professional social networks among Italian astrophysicists. Prospective changes in validation and dissemination practices?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About