We may say that scientific publishing is now living under the “disruption of preprints”! Scientific editors must now think about two things: (i) a new concept of “publishing papers”, and (ii) how to proper (and innovatively) evaluate the contribution these freshly released papers might bring to society. … Read More →
Walking the walk: open communication and review in a congress on open science
The first Iberoamerican Congress for Open Science took place on 23 and 24 November 2022, as a forum for Iberoamerican dialogue on the right to science and to promote change in how we understand science, from an inclusive, open, participatory, and responsible perspective. … Read More →
Rethink peer review to make it sustainable
A recently published article discusses the need for a profound overhaul of peer review, as the current model proves to be no longer sustainable. Journal editors have difficulties finding reviewers willing to evaluate submitted articles, researchers discuss greater recognition or even remuneration to act as reviewers. Among the numerous proposed alternatives, the opening of peer review is presented as the most feasible alternative. … Read More →
Preprint review should be part of doctoral and postdoctoral training programs
Considering the significant growth of preprints in scholarly communication, as well as the emergence of preprint servers in all areas of knowledge, Richard Sever, assistant director of CSHL Press, proposes that (post-publication) evaluation of preprints be used to complement doctoral and postdoctoral training at academic institutions. … Read More →
Funders support use of reviewed preprints in research assessment [Originally published by eLife in December/2022]
Funders and other research organisations are embracing reviewed preprints as an alternative way to assess researchers, and call on others to do the same. … Read More →
eLife ends accept/reject decisions following peer review [Originally published by eLife in October/2022]
eLife will emphasise the public peer review of preprints, restoring author autonomy and promoting the assessment of scientists based on what, not where, they publish. … Read More →
Three takeaways from our July 19 Publish Your Reviews event
What are the benefits of open peer reviews on preprints, and why should researchers consider publishing their journal-invited reviews alongside preprints? ASAPbio fellows orgazined in July 2022 the event “Why Publish Your Reviews?” with the objective to answer this question. … Read More →
Supporting public preprint review through collaborative reviews – an update on ASAPbio’s crowd preprint review
ASAPbio has been supporting preprint feedback since 2021 through their crowd preprint review activities which seek to draw on the collective input of a group of commenters who each can comment on the preprint according to their level of expertise and interest. They are currently midway through their activities for 2022, which include Portuguese preprints from SciELO Preprints, and wanted to share an update on the progress. … Read More →
Announcing Publish Your Reviews
Today, we’re excited to launch Publish Your Reviews, an initiative encouraging reviewers to post their comments alongside the preprint versions of articles. We invite all researchers interested in promoting more open dialog around preprints to sign the pledge. … Read More →
PLOS reports on publishing Peer Review History
PLOS, a pioneer of open access publishing in the years 2000, reports the results of its open peer review policy implemented in 2019. Published Peer Review History is the result of the reviewer’s choice to sign their peer review and the author’s choice to publish the Peer Review History, which consists of several documents. … Read More →
Open Science: Sharing and transparency in research popularization
Although the concept of “open science” has been circulating a lot in the academic area, it has not always been well understood or accepted. Would it be open access to scientific articles? A democratic science, for all? On adhering to the procedures of open science, Bakhtiniana opens up new dialog possibilities between science and society. … Read More →
Editors opine on editorial policy and aspects of peer review
Peer review varies widely between journals and disciplines. A study recently published in eLife aimed to assess the posture of journal editors from five disciplines on their way of conducting peer review. The results suggest that peer review remains largely a closed practice, with some challenges from an ethical point of view. … Read More →
Unlock ways to share peer review data
Peer review is the intrinsic process of scientific research. However, there are few systematic studies on this procedure, and it is not easy to gain access to management information administered by publishers. The PEERE project, funded by the European Community, would make this data available as a public good. … Read More →
Tropical Medicine/Infectious and Parasitic Diseases journals align with open science editorial practices
Three of the most important journals in the areas of Tropical Medicine/Infectious and Parasitic Diseases of the SciELO Brazil Collection decided to adopt open science practices to provide more transparency, increase sharing and open access to the research results they report. This is the first of a series of novel pilot projects promoted by SciELO to inform editorial policies as well as to enable the management and operation of journals in the appropriation of and interoperability with preprints, research data and other content underlying the article texts for subsequent progressive opening of the peer review process. … Read More →
Potential advantages and disadvantages in the publication of reviews
Publishing peer reviews is a growing trend in scholarly communication, for the sake of transparency and as a practice associated to open science. There are, however, advantages and disadvantages that should be considered by journal editors when adopting this peer review modality. … Read More →
Recent Comments