<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<Apologies for cross posting><br>
<br>
Good afternoon,<br>
<br>
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. <span
style="color: rgb(20, 20, 18); font-family: "Source Sans
Pro", Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style:
normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing:
normal; line-height: 24px; orphans: auto; text-align: start;
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal;
widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
display: inline !important; float: none; background-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255);">This blog follows on from the last and asks -<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><strong
style="font-weight: bold !important; color: rgb(20, 20, 18);
font-family: "Source Sans Pro", Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; orphans: auto;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);">if peer review is working why are we facing issues like
increased retractions and the inability to reproduce considerable
proportion of the literature?<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></strong><span
style="color: rgb(20, 20, 18); font-family: "Source Sans
Pro", Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style:
normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing:
normal; line-height: 24px; orphans: auto; text-align: start;
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal;
widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
display: inline !important; float: none; background-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255);">(Spoiler alert - peer review only works
sometimes.)</span><br>
<br>
"The case for Open Research: does peer review work?" is available
at: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=188">https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=188</a> <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
"Lifting the lid on peer review" is available at:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=759">https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=759</a><br>
<br>
In addition a Discussion Paper based on my PhD research into peer
review is also available in Apollo, Cambridge University's
repository (abstract below)<br>
"The Peer Review Paradox: An Australian case study" is available at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/256773">https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/256773</a><br>
<br>
The first three blogs in 'The case for Open Research' series are:<br>
<ul>
<li>The case for Open Research: the mis-measurement problem <a
href="https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=713">https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=713</a> <o:p></o:p></li>
<li>The case for Open Research: the authorship problem <a
href="https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=720">https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=720</a><o:p></o:p></li>
<li><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span>The
case for Open Research: reproducibility, retractions &
retrospective hypotheses <a
href="https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=727">https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=727</a><o:p></o:p></li>
</ul>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Danny<br>
<h5 style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 8.5px 0px 3px;
font-family: myriad-pro, myriad, verdana, arial, sans-serif;
font-weight: 600; line-height: 25px; color: rgb(16, 100, 112);
font-size: 19px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start;
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal;
widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Citation</h5>
<br>
<div class="simple-item-view-authors item-page-field-wrapper table"
style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px; width:
554.984px; max-width: 100%; word-break: break-word; color: rgb(51,
51, 51); font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 17.1429px; orphans: auto;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px;"><span
id="citation-article-authors" style="box-sizing: border-box;
margin: 0px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; margin:
0px;">Kingsley, D. A.</span><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span
id="citation-article-date" style="box-sizing: border-box;
margin: 0px;">(2016).<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span
id="citation-article-title" style="box-sizing: border-box;
margin: 0px;">The Peer Review Paradox: An Australian case
study </span><span id="citation-article-identifier"
style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px;"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.17863/CAM.708">http://dx.doi.org/10.17863/CAM.708</a></span></div>
</div>
<div class="simple-item-view-description item-page-field-wrapper
table" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px; width:
554.984px; max-width: 100%; text-align: justify; word-break:
break-word; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: verdana, arial,
sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant:
normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height:
17.1429px; orphans: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);">
<h5 style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 8.5px 0px 3px;
font-family: myriad-pro, myriad, verdana, arial, sans-serif;
font-weight: 600; line-height: 25px; color: rgb(16, 100, 112);
font-size: 19px;">Abstract</h5>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px;">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.</div>
</div>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
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: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:dak45@cam.ac.uk">dak45@cam.ac.uk</a>
T: @dannykay68
B: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/">https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/</a>
S: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.slideshare.net/DannyKingsley">http://www.slideshare.net/DannyKingsley</a>
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3636-5939</pre>
</body>
</html>