1 / 14

Solution to the Challenges of Scientific Peer Rewiew

Solution to the Challenges of Scientific Peer Rewiew. ye O l d e. Challenges of current peer review process today. Speed : For scientist : 1-4 years , Journals : 160 days Efficiency : Often many iterations required

corinna
Download Presentation

Solution to the Challenges of Scientific Peer Rewiew

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Solution to the Challenges of Scientific Peer Rewiew

  2. ye O l d e Challenges of currentpeer review process today Speed:For scientist: 1-4 years, Journals: 160 days Efficiency:Oftenmanyiterationsrequired Fairness: Areyousureauthor’s status, university, gender etc. cannotinfluence the entryoroutcome of peerreview? Accuracy: Samplesize 2, predictspoorly Cost: Expensive for journals and the society Rewards:Refereesnotrewarded

  3. – Peer review, for the Peers, by the Peers – Home institution of Peerage of Science

  4. Editor Peer Author

  5. Editor Editor Peer START STAGE1 STAGE2 STAGE3 STAGE4 original manuscript • Loremipsumdolorsitamet, • gravidafeugiatiaculis. Phasellus • non tellus volutpatnislullamcorper • tinciduntsedsitametturpis. Proin • cursustinciduntegestas. Morbi • vitaesapieneros. Maecenas • pretium, magna et egestaslobortis, • mauris libero pulvinarest, sed • imperdietvelittortorquislectus. • Duisinterdum, ligula at aliquet • molestie, magna augue • pellentesquevelit, sitametornare • nuncsemeget tellus. Aenean id • commodovelit. Ut in maurisquis • ligulaportamolestieeget at nunc. • Nam utaugueleo, euullamcorper • nibh. Utcommodoaliquamurna in • vitaesagittissapienornare at. • Loremipsumdolorsitamet, • gravidafeugiatiaculis. Phasellus • non tellus volutpatnislullamcorper • tinciduntsedsitametturpis. Proin • cursustinciduntegestas. Morbi • vitaesapieneros. Maecenas • pretium, magna et egestaslobortis, • mauris libero pulvinarest, sed • imperdietvelittortorquislectus. • Duisinterdum, ligula at aliquet • molestie, magna augue • pellentesquevelit, sitametornare • nuncsemeget tellus. Aenean id • commodovelit. Ut in maurisquis • ligulaportamolestieeget at nunc. • Nam utaugueleo, euullamcorper • nibh. Utcommodoaliquamurna in • vitaesagittissapienornare at. revised manuscript PEQ=3.6 reviews PEQ=1.2 PAQ=4.7 • Loremipsumdolorsitamet, • gravidafeugiatiaculis. Phasellus • non tellus volutpatnislullamcorper • tinciduntsedsitametturpis. Proin • cursustinciduntegestas. Morbi • vitaesapieneros. Maecenas • pretium, magna et egestaslobortis, • mauris libero pulvinarest, sed • imperdietvelittortorquislectus. • Duisinterdum, ligula at aliquet • molestie, magna augue • pellentesquevelit, sitametornare • nuncsemeget tellus. Aenean id • commodovelit. Ut in maurisquis • ligulaportamolestieeget at nunc. • Nam utaugueleo, euullamcorper • nibh. Utcommodoaliquamurna in • vitaesagittissapienornare at. • Loremipsumdolorsitamet, • gravidafeugiatiaculis. Phasellus • non tellus volutpatnislullamcorper • tinciduntsedsitametturpis. Proin • cursustinciduntegestas. Morbi • vitaesapieneros. Maecenas • pretium, magna et egestaslobortis, • mauris libero pulvinarest, sed • imperdietvelittortorquislectus. • Duisinterdum, ligula at aliquet • molestie, magna augue • pellentesquevelit, sitametornare • nuncsemeget tellus. Aenean id • commodovelit. Ut in maurisquis • ligulaportamolestieeget at nunc. • Nam utaugueleo, euullamcorper • nibh. Utcommodoaliquamurna in • vitaesagittissapienornare at. • Loremipsumdolorsitamet, • gravidafeugiatiaculis. Phasellus • non tellus volutpatnislullamcorper • tinciduntsedsitametturpis. Proin • cursustinciduntegestas. Morbi • vitaesapieneros. Maecenas • pretium, magna et egestaslobortis, • mauris libero pulvinarest, sed • imperdietvelittortorquislectus. • Duisinterdum, ligula at aliquet • molestie, magna augue • pellentesquevelit, sitametornare • nuncsemeget tellus. Aenean id • commodovelit. Ut in maurisquis • ligulaportamolestieeget at nunc. • Nam utaugueleo, euullamcorper • nibh. Utcommodoaliquamurna in • vitaesagittissapienornare at. • Loremipsumdolorsitamet, • gravidafeugiatiaculis. Phasellus • non tellus volutpatnislullamcorper • tinciduntsedsitametturpis. Proin • cursustinciduntegestas. Morbi • vitaesapieneros. Maecenas • pretium, magna et egestaslobortis, • mauris libero pulvinarest, sed • imperdietvelittortorquislectus. • Duisinterdum, ligula at aliquet • molestie, magna augue • pellentesquevelit, sitametornare • nuncsemeget tellus. Aenean id • commodovelit. Ut in maurisquis • ligulaportamolestieeget at nunc. • Nam utaugueleo, euullamcorper • nibh. Utcommodoaliquamurna in • vitaesagittissapienornare at. PEQ=3.0 PEQ=3.7 Author

  6. Editor Peer READY @ @ Name Terms of publishing offer revised manuscript PEQ=3.6 reviews PAQ=4.7 PEQ=1.2 PEQ=3.0 PEQ=3.7 Author

  7. – Peer review, for the Peers, by the Peers – Opportunity, notrequest Anonymous Choosefreely Peer-review-of-peer-review Automatic Becauseyou’reworthit Proactivecontrol Anonymity, no rejections Freedom Freedom

  8. ye O l d e Challenges of currentpeer review process today Speed:For scientist: 1-4 years, Journals: 160 days Efficiency:Oftenmanyiterationsrequired Fairness: Areyousureauthor’s status, university, gender etc. cannotinfluence the entryoroutcome of peerreview? Accuracy: Samplesize 2, predictspoorly Cost: Expensive for journals and the society Rewards:Refereesnotrewarded

  9. Solutions in the newpeer review process Speed:Authorsdecide, onlyoneroundneeded Efficiency:One peerreviewprocess is enough Fairness: Triple-blindpeerreview Accuracy: Samplesizedependes on interest, reviewsare of higherquality Cost: Lower, and only per publishedpaper Rewards:Refereescanbuildreputation, getpublications, becomefamouscritics (and bestreviewergets 5000€ on August 25th!)

  10. – Peer review, for the Peers, by the Peers – Community growth: invitations & submissions At the writing of this… Over 900 scientists at over 250 institutions in over 30 countries

  11. – Peer review, for the Peers, by the Peers – Community growth: invitations & submissions Since launch in November 22, 2011: 44 manuscripts On average, each manuscript gets 2.3 reviews Over 180 review evaluations done

  12. – Peer review, for the Peers, by the Peers – Help make it happen •  Createaccounts and invitecolleagues •  Useitas an author, reviewer and editor! • Show publishersthatthisworks: • Submit, getreviews, exportresultsto non-participatingjournals

  13. – Peer review, for the Peers, by the Peers – Founders Janne-Tuomas Seppänen Mikko Mönkkönen Janne Kotiaho Thank you

More Related