Canalblog
Suivre ce blog Administration + Créer mon blog
Formation Continue du Supérieur
27 avril 2015

Peer Review Works, Says New Research on Citations and Patents

By Paul Basken. The peer-review system is often described as the "gold standard" for determining scientific merit. A study published on Thursday gives that belief some empirical affirmation. More...
26 avril 2015

Print is dead. Long live print

Résultat de recherche d'images pour By Léo Charbonneau. More universities are dropping the print editions of their campus newspapers, but that doesn't mean print no longer has a place in publishing. More...

12 avril 2015

Scholarly Communication and Peer Review - The Current Landscape and Future Trends

Wellcome TrustPeer review plays a central and critical role in the systems of publishing and communicating research results, from the perspectives of researchers and also of publishers. There is currently much experimentation in different approaches to peer review, both pre- and post-publication. The experiments are in part a response to concerns – some of them longstanding, others that have arisen more recently – about the effectiveness and fairness of current systems. But they have also been stimulated by the potential of new technologies, and new entrants to the scholarly communications market.
The key concerns relate to the rise in the number of number of papers being submitted for publication, and the pressure on researchers to secure publication, especially in high-status journals. This pressure is passed on to publishers and editors who need to ensure that their peer review and other checks act as effective filters against the publication of work that does not meet appropriate standards or, worse, involves misconduct or fraud. They therefore worry about difficulties in recruiting high-quality reviewers; about the need to provide them with effective support, guidance and training; and about the risks to the reputation of their journals – and even to the scholarly publishing system as a whole – when pre-publication review fails to detect papers with major problems. On the other hand, many publishers are also concerned about over-critical or negative reviews, and the need to ensure that reviewers do not make unreasonable demands on authors, or set impossible standards. Achieving an appropriate balance between properly-rigorous review on the one hand and unduly critical review on the other is not easy, and publishers are taking various steps to enhance their ability to achieve it.
There are many vocal critics of current approaches to peer review, and advocates for new systems and approaches. But publishers stress the need to avoiding getting too far in advance of the different subject communities they serve. The cultures of those communities are very powerful, and journals and publishers are keen to avoid the risk of alienating key sections of them. Hence many innovations, even from the newer entrants to the market, are introduced as pilots and/or on an optional basis; and we are unlikely to see widespread abandonment, for example, of pre-publication in favour of post-publication review. Editors play a key role in advising publishers on what is or might not be acceptable; and their role is likely to be enhanced as the pace of experiment quickens in six key areas.
First, there is widespread acknowledgement of the need to move towards greater transparency and openness in the review process. But there is a clear distinction to be made between openness as to reviewers’ identities on the one hand, and the content of reviews to readers as well as authors on the other. In many subject communities, the former is likely to be less acceptable, at least in the short term, than the latter.
Second, there is common agreement on the desirability of more interaction between editors, reviewers and authors. More ambitiously, many publishers wish to see more dialogue not just between all those involved in pre-publication review, but also with those engaged in post-publication comments, reviews and ratings.
Third, more and more publishers are seeking to provide article-level metrics, going beyond the views, downloads and citations to include - with the help of services such as Altmetric, Plum Analytics, and Impact Story - a range of metrics relating to comments and ratings, mentions in social media and news sites, bookmarking and so on. There is debate about how the metrics are generated, the weightings attached to different measures and the extent to which they are aggregated, and so on. But they are an increasingly important feature of scholarly publishing.
Fourth, there is increasing interest in the provision of rewards in the form of scholarly credit and recognition for reviewers. Both publishers and start-ups such as Publons and Peerage of Science are keen to give proper credit for the contributions that reviewers make to the research community. There is little enthusiasm – rather the reverse – for any suggestion of monetary rewards. But recognition not just of the quantity but also the quality of reviews is likely to become an increasingly-significant part of the landscape.
Fifth, there are renewed efforts to improve guidance, training and feedback for reviewers; and assessment and ratings of reviews and reviewers. Such efforts are essential if the peer review system is to sustain the confidence of the research community.
Sixth, there is increasing interest in differentiating between the distinct but related purposes of peer review. The rise of mega-journals such as PLOS One and Sage Open has highlighted the usefulness of seeking to distinguish between whether the research on which a paper is based is sound and thus worthy of publication, and whether it fits with the nature, scope and ambitions of the journal to which it has been submitted. Not least, such a distinction can help reduce the redundancy of effort involved when papers are submitted successively to more than one journal. Publishers are making increasing use of ‘cascade’ systems to avoid reviewing papers more than is necessary, and they are keen to do more. Whether third-party review services will increase in role and scope, is not yet clear.
In addition to these six key areas, however, we have detected through our study a sense that publishers would welcome more guidance from key sections of the research community on the kinds of peer review services they want publishers to provide, and on the purposes that they should seek to fulfil. Unless the purposes are defined with greater clarity than they are at present, at least some of the current experimentation may prove to be of little point. Download Scholarly Communication and Peer Review - The Current Landscape and Future Trends.

12 avril 2015

Why journals should not forget their past

By Aileen Fyfe. Scientific publishing has a noble history of tolerating tiny profits. We need a bit more of that spirit today, suggests Aileen Fyfe. More...

12 avril 2015

Quarterly summary: Entrepreneurship, advocacy and productive rejections

Résultat de recherche d'images pour By David Kent. The post on changing the publishing system was the most hotly debated of the quarter, but also the one with the least clear way forward. More...

8 avril 2015

Major publisher retracts 43 scientific papers amid wider fake peer-review scandal

By Stephen Downes - Stephen's Web. Major publisher retracts 43 scientific papers amid wider fake peer-review scandal
Fred Barbash, Washington Post, 2015/03/31

This has been in the news for the last week or so. To me it suggests peer review is struggling to maintain its viability. Thee main scandal is a ring of people who manipulated the peer review system to support each others' works. More...

7 avril 2015

A vos plumes !

Par Paul Santelmann, Responsable de la Prospective à l’AFPA.
Publication : HORS-SERIE AFPA/EDUCATION PERMANENTE n° 6 - Parution milieu 2016 – Diffusion aux abonnés d’Education Permanente + réseau AFPA et salariés AFPA .

Thème : l’évaluation et la certification en formation professionnelle

 Objectifs du hors-série

  • Aborder dans une quinzaine d’articles les systèmes et démarches d’évaluation et de certification des compétences et des savoirs acquis en formation professionnelle initiale et postscolaire (hors VAE).
  • Comprendre et appréhender les objectifs et les critères des méthodes mobilisées.
  • Mieux faire connaître les différents systèmes de certification (diplômes, titres, CQP) au regard de leurs liens avec les systèmes et opérateurs de formation (un des enjeux du compte personnalisé de formation – CPF). Voir l'article...
6 avril 2015

Co-Authoring with a Professor

http://www.insidehighered.com/sites/default/server_files/styles/blog_landing/public/Screen%20Shot%202011-12-12%20at%2012.29.48%20PM.png?itok=ITDqfJNPBy DeWitt Scott. Students in today’s graduate programs are being pressured more and more to publish substantial amounts of articles and book chapters before receiving their PhDs. We are constantly told that in order to compete on the cutthroat job market for academic positions, we will be expected to have a semi-extensive publication record. Such expectations have forced graduate students to seek almost every opportunity to submit work for publication. Read more...
5 avril 2015

Overseas academics ‘should have REF input’

By . Including more international voices on assessment panels, introducing metrics to measure impact and making sure that every academic fits into the defined categories are some ways the research excellence framework could be improved. More...

3 avril 2015

Publication :: Les ambitions de l’Institut Montaigne pour l’Université

Logo AmueL’Institut Montaigne publie une étude intitulée "Université : pour une nouvelle ambition" dans laquelle le Think Tank propose de créer une agence indépendante, qui remplacerait le secrétariat d’État chargé de l’Enseignement et de la Recherche et qui aurait pour mission la répartition et le suivi des moyens et de définir. Elle devrait mettre en œuvre un système incitatif d’allocation des moyens. Selon l’auteur, même si des progrès ont pu être réalisés ces dernières années, les universités souffrent encore d’un déficit de pluridisciplinarité, d’internationalisation et de professionnalisation. « Notre système reste l’un des plus inégalitaires ».
En savoir + :: Le rapport de l'Institut Montaigne

Newsletter
49 abonnés
Visiteurs
Depuis la création 2 783 012
Formation Continue du Supérieur
Archives