A brief review of peer review in DMM in 2019.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hackett R
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6994959 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
A brief review of peer review in DMM in 2019.
Disease models & mechanisms 20200124 1
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9922873 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7434448 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has spread exponentially throughout the world in a short period, aided by our hyperconnected world including global trade and travel. Unlike previous pandemics, the pace of the spread of the virus has been matched by the pace of publications, not just in traditional journals, but also in preprint servers. Not all publication findings are true, and sifting through the firehose of data has been challenging to peer reviewers, editors, as well as to consumers of the literature, that is, scientists, healthcare workers, and the general public. There has been an equally exponential rise in the public discussion on social media. Rather than decry the pace of change, we suggest the nephrology community should embrace it, making deposition of research into preprint servers the default, encouraging prepublication peer review more widely of such preprint studies, and harnessing social media tools to make these actions easier and seamless.
| S-EPMC7409832 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Open peer review (OPR), as with other elements of open science and open research, is on the rise. It aims to bring greater transparency and participation to formal and informal peer review processes. But what is meant by `open peer review', and what advantages and disadvantages does it have over standard forms of review? How do authors or reviewers approach OPR? And what pitfalls and opportunities should you look out for? Here, we propose ten considerations for OPR, drawing on discussions with authors, reviewers, editors, publishers and librarians, and provide a pragmatic, hands-on introduction to these issues. We cover basic principles and summarise best practices, indicating how to use OPR to achieve best value and mutual benefits for all stakeholders and the wider research community.
| S-EPMC6073088 | biostudies-other
Project description:Physical stiffening of the large arteries is the central paradigm of vascular aging. Indeed, stiffening in the larger central arterial system, such as the aortic tree, significantly contributes to cardiovascular diseases in older individuals and is positively associated with systolic hypertension, coronary artery disease, stroke, heart failure and atrial fibrillation, which are the leading causes of mortality in the developed countries and also in the developing world as estimated in 2010 by World Health Organizations. Thus, better, less invasive and more accurate measures of arterial stiffness have been developed, which prove useful as diagnostic indices, pathophysiological markers and predictive indicators of disease. This article presents a review of the structural determinants of vascular stiffening, its pathophysiologic determinants and its implications for vascular research and medicine. A critical discussion of new techniques for assessing vascular stiffness is also presented.
| S-EPMC3078647 | biostudies-other
Project description:Peer review is the gold standard for scientific communication, but its ability to guarantee the quality of published research remains difficult to verify. Recent modeling studies suggest that peer review is sensitive to reviewer misbehavior, and it has been claimed that referees who sabotage work they perceive as competition may severely undermine the quality of publications. Here we examine which aspects of suboptimal reviewing practices most strongly impact quality, and test different mitigating strategies that editors may employ to counter them. We find that the biggest hazard to the quality of published literature is not selfish rejection of high-quality manuscripts but indifferent acceptance of low-quality ones. Bypassing or blacklisting bad reviewers and consulting additional reviewers to settle disagreements can reduce but not eliminate the impact. The other editorial strategies we tested do not significantly improve quality, but pairing manuscripts to reviewers unlikely to selfishly reject them and allowing revision of rejected manuscripts minimize rejection of above-average manuscripts. In its current form, peer review offers few incentives for impartial reviewing efforts. Editors can help, but structural changes are more likely to have a stronger impact.
| S-EPMC5633172 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The advancement of various fields of science depends on the actions of individual scientists via the peer review process. The referees' work patterns and stochastic nature of decision making both relate to the particular features of refereeing and to the universal aspects of human behavior. Here, we show that the time a referee takes to write a report on a scientific manuscript depends on the final verdict. The data is compared to a model, where the review takes place in an ongoing competition of completing an important composite task with a large number of concurrent ones - a Deadline -effect. In peer review human decision making and task completion combine both long-range predictability and stochastic variation due to a large degree of ever-changing external "friction".
| S-EPMC3628219 | biostudies-other
Project description:A novel coronavirus, designated as 2019-nCoV, hit the central Chinese city of Wuhan in late December 2019, and subsequently spread rapidly to all provinces of China and multiple countries. As of 0:00 am February 9, 2020, a total of 37,287 cases have been confirmed infection of 2019-nCoV in China mainland, and 302 cases have also been cumulatively reported from 24 countries. According to the latest data, a total of 813 deaths occurred in China mainland, with the mortality reaching approximately 2.2%. At present, there is no vaccine or specific drugs for the human coronavirus. Therefore, it is critical to understand the nature of the virus and its clinical characteristics, in order to respond to the 2019-nCoV outbreak. Thus, the present study briefly but comprehensively summarizes the not much but timely reports on the 2019-nCoV.
| S-EPMC7102581 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Publishing peer review materials alongside research articles promises to make the peer review process more transparent as well as making it easier to recognise these contributions and give credit to peer reviewers. Traditionally, the peer review reports, editors letters and author responses are only shared between the small number of people in those roles prior to publication, but there is a growing interest in making some or all of these materials available. A small number of journals have been publishing peer review materials for some time, others have begun this practice more recently, and significantly more are now considering how they might begin. This article outlines the outcomes from a recent workshop among journals with experience in publishing peer review materials, in which the specific operation of these workflows, and the challenges, were discussed. Here, we provide a draft as to how to represent these materials in the JATS and Crossref data models to facilitate the coordination and discoverability of peer review materials, and seek feedback on these initial recommendations.
| S-EPMC6206614 | biostudies-literature