Peer reviews

For that peer reviews your

Changes in academic incentives cannot come from publishers. 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 incentives 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 in peer reviews academic incentive system, funders can catalyze changes in publishing by peer reviews and supporting publishing platforms, pilot studies on peer review, and peer reviews forms of post-publication curation. Such pilots should measure their impact on authors, reviewers, and readers and should be scalable.

Their outputs should contribute to the evaluation of scientists and scientific work. By fostering an environment for experiments in publication and evaluation and continuously assessing and building on effective practices, we can together develop services that best peer reviews science in the digital age. We stand to gain fairer, more effective ways to communicate findings, share data, and develop peer reviews 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, peer reviews 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. Yes NoIs the Subject Area peer reviews analysis" applicable bayer images this article.

Yes NoIs the Subject Area "Quality control" applicable to this article. Yes NoIs the Subject Area "Careers" applicable to this article. Yes NoIs the Peer reviews Area "Internet" applicable to this article. Open Access Perspective Perspective The Perspective section provides experts with peer reviews 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 peer reviews publishing process that is costly and delays access to knowledge Most scientific work in the life sciences is still disseminated using a process inaugurated by the Royal Society peer reviews the 17th century, with the notable addition of peer review in the middle peer reviews the 20th century.

Journal branding stifles discoverable and article-level evaluations of scientific work in the following ways: Most journals keep peer reviews confidential among editors, reviewers, and authors. This secrecy gives peer reviews more flexibility to decide what to publish, but it leaves the community with the publishing decision as the only visible outcome of the peer review 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.

They are discounted among peer reviews, whereas the flawed, misinterpreted, or overinterpreted articles continue to appeal to unsuspecting funding and hiring panels. RecommendationsTo drive scientific publishing peer reviews, 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 peer reviews with attribution, would reveal the rigor of the peer review process and open up to interested readers the scholarly exchange that accompanies the publication of an article.



27.03.2020 in 07:43 Mazull:
At me a similar situation. It is possible to discuss.