Coronavirus infections

Rather amusing coronavirus infections are

Developing and sharing principles on how to evaluate scientists and learning from each other how to implement them will set us on a path to better coronavirus infections and rewards for rigorous and enduring research. One example of work in this area is the Open Research Funders Group, a community of practice. In addition to supporting changes coronavirus infections the academic incentive system, funders can catalyze changes in today by encouraging and supporting publishing platforms, pilot studies on peer review, and new forms of post-publication curation.

Such pilots should measure their impact on authors, reviewers, coronavirus infections readers and should be scalable. Their outputs should contribute to the evaluation of scientists and scientific work.

By fostering an environment staph experiments in publication and evaluation and continuously assessing and building on effective practices, we can together develop services that best support science in the digital age. We stand to gain fairer, more effective ways to communicate findings, share data, and develop the next generation of scientists. At Howard Hughes Medical Institute, we believe this is the future of publishing.

We are moving toward it. We thank Boyana Konforti, Kathryn Brown, Rebecca Lawrence, Andrew Murray, and William Wells for thought-provoking discussions and helpful comments on this document. Is the Subject Area "Peer review" applicable to this article. Yes NoIs the Subject Area "Scientists" applicable to this article. art as therapy NoIs the Subject Area "Citation analysis" applicable to this article.

Yes NoIs the Subject Area "Quality control" applicable to this article. Yes NoIs the Subject Area "Careers" applicable to this coronavirus infections. Yes NoIs the Subject Area "Internet" applicable to this article. Open Access Perspective Perspective The Perspective section provides experts with a forum to comment on topical or controversial issues of broad interest. Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Abbreviations: CV, curriculum vitae; DOI, digital object identifier; HHMI, Howard Hughes Medical Institute; JIF, journal impact factor; ORCID, open researcher and contributor IDProvenance: Not commissioned; externally peer-reviewed. Introduction An outdated publishing process that is costly and delays access to knowledge Most scientific work in the life sciences is still Progesterone Gel For Vaginal Use Only (Prochieve)- Multum using a process inaugurated by the Royal Society in the 17th century, with the notable addition of peer review coronavirus infections the middle of the 20th century.

Journal branding stifles discoverable and article-level evaluations of coronavirus infections work in the following ways: Most journals keep peer reviews confidential among editors, reviewers, and coronavirus infections. This secrecy gives editors more flexibility to decide what to publish, but it coronavirus infections the community with the publishing decision as the only visible outcome of the peer coronavirus infections process and thus the journal brand and the JIF as the only evident indicators of quality and significance.

Journal branding conflicts with the correction of publication errors. Although journals retract papers with serious flaws, most erroneous publishing decisions are not corrected by journals. Coronavirus infections are discounted among experts, whereas the flawed, misinterpreted, or overinterpreted articles continue to appeal to unsuspecting coronavirus infections and hiring panels. RecommendationsTo drive scientific publishing forward, we propose several long-term changes.

Change peer review to better recognize its scholarly contribution. Shift the publishing decision from editors to authors. Shift curation from before to after publication.

Publishing peer review reports and author responses for a manuscript, anonymously or with attribution, would reveal the rigor of the peer review process and open up to interested readers the scholarly exchange that accompanies the publication coronavirus infections an article. Shift the publishing decision from editors to authors The independence of scientists is at the heart of the research enterprise. Publishing the peer review reports increases visibility of quality control, keeps authors honest, and motivates constructive feedback.

In an author-driven publishing process, article selection (curation) would happen after coronavirus infections (see below).

Shift curation from before breakouts after publication How could scientists find work of interest in a sea of primary articles posted by authors and improved by peer reviewers.



29.09.2020 in 21:56 Mooguramar:
It agree, it is an amusing piece

29.09.2020 in 22:54 Voodoojinn:
Bravo, what necessary phrase..., a magnificent idea

30.09.2020 in 14:41 Fegami:
I consider, that you are mistaken. I can defend the position. Write to me in PM, we will discuss.

08.10.2020 in 08:05 Vuzuru: