1 / 16

Decoupling Peer Review from Publication

Decoupling Peer Review from Publication. Putting Time Back Into Science. Beyond the PDF2 Conference March 2013. Why Rubriq?. T ime spent on rejected papers each year Just for the 12,000 journals covered in the Web of Science database. 11,206,423 Hours (1,279 Years) . 16,202,941 Hours

earl
Download Presentation

Decoupling Peer Review from Publication

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. Decoupling Peer Review from Publication Putting Time Back Into Science Beyond the PDF2 Conference March 2013

  2. Why Rubriq? Time spent on rejected papers each year Just for the 12,000 journals covered in the Web of Science database 11,206,423 Hours (1,279 Years) 16,202,941 Hours (1,850 Years)

  3. Two Flavors of Peer Review • TRADITIONAL • Journal Specific Criteria • Fit for our journal? • Journal as filter and prioritization structure • “PLoS ONE” • Valid Science Criteria • Why shouldn’t we publish? • Publish then filter articles

  4. Challenges of Traditional Peer Review • TRADITIONAL • Journal Specific Criteria • Fit for our journal? • Journal as filter and prioritization structure “Journal Loops” • Silos • Sluggish • Opaque • Redundant • Subjective Impact Factor – Reputation JOURNALS

  5. Challenges: Post-Publication • “PLoS ONE” • Valid Science Criteria • Why shouldn’t we publish? • Publish then filter articles “The Big Heap” • Initial reception • Stratification / Organization • Post-publication peer review PAPERS

  6. Custom vs. Redundant Elements • TRADITIONAL • Journal Specific Criteria • Fit for our journal? • Journal as filter and prioritization structure • “PLoS ONE” • Valid Science Criteria • Why shouldn’t we publish? • Publish then filter articles Custom Redundant Redundant

  7. A Third Flavor of Peer Review • TRADITIONAL • Journal Specific Criteria • Fit for our journal? • Journal as filter and prioritization structure • INDEPENDENT • Standardized Rating Criteria • Decoupled from Journal • Quantitative & Qualitative • Pre & Post Publication Peer Review • “PLoS ONE” • Valid Science Criteria • Why shouldn’t we publish? • Publish then filter articles

  8. Working Together • TRADITIONAL • Journal Specific Criteria • Recommend Journals for Authors • Supplement Decisions • Attract Papers • Better utilize Reviewers • INDEPENDENT • Standardized Rating Criteria • Performed in 1-2 weeks • Used to make journal recommendations • “PLoS ONE” • Valid Science Criteria • New source of papers • Fast track decision • Reduce costs per paper Redundant Custom

  9. Our Scorecard Rubric Quality of Research Quality of Presentation Novelty & Interest

  10. Rubriq Report(Author Version)

  11. Rubriq Report(Journal Version)

  12. Our Process 1-2 weeks 1 Classification & Manuscript Report 2 Reviewer Report (R-score) 3 Journal Recommendations

  13. Recommending Journals

  14. Rubriq Summary • INDEPENDENT • Standardized Rating Criteria • Decoupled from Journal • Quantitative & Qualitative • Pre & Post Publication Peer Review • Same Reviewers as Journals • Structured Reviews • Editorial Processes (e.g, iThenticate) • Seamless Pre & Post Publication Peer Review • Reviewer Compensation Models • Can Supplement or Replace Journal Peer Review

  15. Exploring New Models • Author as buyer (current model) • Focus on Speed, Control, and Choice for Authors • Self-Publish Option • Pre-Approved Option with Mega-OA Partners • Introduce Market Dynamics (Journal Selection) • Reviewer Payments • Free for Publishers / Lower Barrier of Entry for New Journals • Institution as buyer? • Funder as buyer? • Publisher as buyer?

  16. Keith Collier keith.collier@rubriq.com Thanks

More Related