Peer review clearly isn’t perfect, but rather than simply bypassing it and releasing even more information into an overloaded system, we should focus on making it better, says this life sciences editor. The first step is to reset and clearly state our standards for quality in both publishing and peer reviewing.
To help celebrate Peer Review Week 2016, the steering committee for the commemoration asked the 20+ organisations on the group to tell us how they #recognizereview and what more they hope to do in future. Their responses show a clear understanding of the importance of peer review and a firm commitment to supporting more recognition for review in future.
Recent findings suggest interdisciplinary research is less likely to be funded than discipline-based research proposals, reports Gabriele Bammer, who argues different review processes may well be required to do justice to these different kinds of interdisciplinarity.
Researchers decided to conduct behavioral testing on competition and the process of peer review. What they learned offers some prescriptions for improving peer review going forward.
Jon Tennant takes a look at the transformations underway aimed at tackling the widespread dissatisfaction with the system of peer review. He provides further background on the platform ScienceOpen, which seeks to enable a process of transparent, self-regulating, peer review, where knowledge sharing is encouraged, valued, and rewarded. By adopting a more transparent process of research evaluation, we move one step closer towards a fairer and democratic research process.
The author of the new book ‘The Knowledge War’ discusses the intricacies of peer review as practiced, and concludes with a clarion call for reviewers and editors to remember their duties, not their interests.
This piece was originally posted in Management INK, a SAGE blog highlighting top scholarship and catering to academics, researchers and practitioners in the […]
Andrew Preston of Publons argues that while the academic community does “a pretty good job of peer reviewing,” the process remains hampered by the 19th century technology used to manage the process.
Drawing on discussions with academics who have oriented their work around public engagement and social impact, Daniel Pearson suggests these academics present an opportunity to rethink the existing structures of reward and recognition in higher education. “We are, as a species, addicted to story,” says English professor Jonathan Gottschall in his book, The Storytelling Animal. “Even when the […] Tom Burns, whose combination of play — and plays – with teaching in higher education added a light, collaborative and engaging model […] A 2024 report by the National Academies explores the latest advances in artificial intelligence (AI) technology and their potential effects on economic productivity, job stability, and income inequality. It also highlights key research opportunities and data needs to help workers and policymakers adapt to the evolving AI landscape. In this post, co-authors Frank T. Piller, Tucker J. Marion, and Mahdi Srour reflect on the inspiration behind their research article, “Generative […] During the final stages of editing the proofs for Artificial Intelligence and Work: Transforming Work, Organizations, and Society in an Age of Insecurity, […]
EXPLORE
Impact
Young Scholars Can’t Take the Field in Game of Academic Metrics
READ MORE
Canada’s Storytellers Challenge Seeks Compelling Narratives About Student Research
READ MORE
Tom Burns, 1959-2024: A Pioneer in Learning Development
READ MORE
Innovation
NAS Report Examines Nexus of AI and Workplace
READ MORE
When Do You Need to Trust a GenAI’s Input to Your Innovation Process?
READ MORE
The Authors of ‘Artificial Intelligence and Work’ on Future Risk
READ MORE
