[GOAL] BLOGS: The case for Open Research: does peer review work? and Lifting the lid on peer review PLUS a discussion paper

[Danny Kingsley]

<Apologies for cross posting>

Good afternoon,

A cornucopia of peer-review related items for your perusal today. The 
fourth post in the Case for Open Research series is now available, this 
time turning its attention to peer review. This blog follows on from the 
last and asks -*if peer review is working why are we facing issues like 
increased retractions and the inability to reproduce considerable 
proportion of the literature?*(Spoiler alert - peer review only works 
sometimes.)

"The case for Open Research: does peer review work?" is available at: 
https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=188

Published alongside this post is the write-up from a series of 
discussions about peer review held last year by Cambridge University 
Press with Cambridge researchers who act as editors of journals.

"Lifting the lid on peer review" is available at: 
https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=759

In addition a Discussion Paper based on my PhD research into peer review 
is also available in Apollo, Cambridge University's repository (abstract 
below)
"The Peer Review Paradox: An Australian case study" is available at 
https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/256773

The first three blogs in 'The case for Open Research' series are:

  * The case for Open Research: the mis-measurement problem
    https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=713
  * The case for Open Research: the authorship problem
    https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=720
  * The case for Open Research: reproducibility, retractions &
    retrospective hypotheses
    https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=727


Regards,

Danny


          Citation


Kingsley, D. A.(2016).The Peer Review Paradox: An Australian case study 
http://dx.doi.org/10.17863/CAM.708


          Abstract

This paper discusses the results of a series of 42 interviews with 
Chemists, Computer Scientists and Sociologists conducted in 2006-2007 at 
two Australian universities. All academics perform peer review with 
later career researcher usually taking a greater load. The amount and 
type of review undertaken differs between disciplines. In general, 
review of journal articles and conference papers is unpaid work although 
reviewing books (a much larger task) often results in at least an offer 
of a free book from the publishers. Reviewing of grant proposals and 
theses does attract an honorarium, but these are insignificant amounts. 
Most interviewees indicated that reviewing is part of what is expected 
in academia, and that it offers the benefit of early access to new 
research results. The competing requirements of an academic's peer group 
and the institution at which they work has meant a sharp increase in the 
number of papers published over the past decade. This in turn has made 
finding referees difficult, and the fact the work goes unrecognised by 
the performance measurement process adds to the problem. The claim of 
certain conferences that their papers are refereed is met with some 
cynicism, even in Computer Science, which normally uses conferences as 
its main channel of peer reviewed communication. Overall these findings 
open the question of whether the amount of effort expended in peer 
review is justified.

-- 
Dr Danny Kingsley
Head, Office of Scholarly Communication
Cambridge University Library
West Road, Cambridge CB39DR
P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437
M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564
E: dak45 at cam.ac.uk
T: @dannykay68
B: https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/
S: http://www.slideshare.net/DannyKingsley
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3636-5939

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20160719/6c95323f/attachment.html