Peer Review: An Evolving Discipline.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Cornell CN
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9837411 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Peer Review: An Evolving Discipline.
HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery 20221114 1
Similar Datasets
Project description:Classical epidemiologic studies have made seminal contributions to identifying the etiology of most common cancers. Molecular epidemiology was conceived of as an extension of traditional epidemiology to incorporate biomarkers with questionnaire data to further our understanding of the mechanisms of carcinogenesis. Early molecular epidemiologic studies employed functional assays. These studies were hampered by the need for sequential and/or prediagnostic samples, viable lymphocytes and the uncertainty of how well these functional data (derived from surrogate lymphocytic tissue) reflected events in the target tissue. The completion of the Human Genome Project and Hapmap Project, together with the unparalleled advances in high-throughput genotyping revolutionized the practice of molecular epidemiology. Early studies had been constrained by existing technology to use the hypothesis-driven candidate gene approach, with disappointing results. Pathway analysis addressed some of the concerns, although the study of interacting and overlapping gene networks remained a challenge. Whole-genome scanning approaches were designed as agnostic studies using a dense set of markers to capture much of the common genome variation to study germ-line genetic variation as risk factors for common complex diseases. It should be possible to exploit the wealth of these data for pharmacogenetic studies to realize the promise of personalized therapy. Going forward, the temptation for epidemiologists to be lured by high-tech 'omics' will be immense. Systems Epidemiology, the observational prototype of systems biology, is an extension of classical epidemiology to include powerful new platforms such as the transcriptome, proteome and metabolome. However, there will always be the need for impeccably designed and well-powered epidemiologic studies with rigorous quality control of data, specimen acquisition and statistical analysis.
| S-EPMC2802669 | biostudies-literature
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-other
Project description:Researchers have repeatedly demonstrated that women continue to be underrepresented in publication output in the sciences. This is true even in female-rich fields such as archaeology. Since most gender-related publication studies rely on data from peer-reviewed journals, it would be instructive, though challenging, to also track publication output in non-refereed and professional or industry venues, which tend to be more accessible to those working in extra-academic settings. This comparison is important in fields such as archaeology in which the vast majority (approximately 90%) of practitioners in the USA work for private sector cultural resource management firms and federal and state agencies. To understand the dynamics of who publishes where, we compiled a new dataset tracking over 40 years of peer-reviewed versus non-peer-reviewed publications that publish articles on the archaeology of California (an American Indian cultural area including southwest Oregon, most of the state of California, and Baja Mexico) and the Great Basin culture area (spanning eight western USA states). Historic gender differences in the publishing output of authors identified as men versus those identified as women were revealed by articles published between 1974 and 2016 in two refereed journals, the Journal of California Anthropology/ Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology and California Archaeology, and in one un-refereed venue, the Society for California Archaeology Proceedings. Although multiple independent measures indicate that women are contributing and active members of the discipline, publishing records yield more variable results. Specifically, while women have historic and increasingly robust levels of participation in the non-peer-reviewed Proceedings, they remain vastly underrepresented in the two peer-reviewed journals, which are widely regarded as more prestigious and influential. We argue that this "peer review gap" is influenced by variation in the costs (largely time investment) and benefits of publication for people working in different professional roles (e.g., agency professionals, private/cultural resource management firm personnel, tenure-track faculty, adjunct faculty, etc.). We also argue that these cost and benefit variations may ultimately influence the decisions of people of all genders and backgrounds, but, because of the current structure of our discipline-including the fact that women and minorities lag in positions where costly peer-reviewed publication is a rewarded and supported activity-overwhelmingly affect these groups. We recognize that non-refereed publications such as Proceedings provide an important means of bridging the peer review gap and give voice to individuals from diverse backgrounds and perspectives.
| S-EPMC5706720 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To what extent have positions for science education specialists as change agents within science departments persisted and evolved over the past decade? We addressed this question by studying a population of Science Faculty with Education Specialties (SFES) first described in 2008. SFES are university science faculty who engage in undergraduate science education, K-12 science education, and/or research in science education. Compared to a decade ago, SFES are now more prevalent and more likely to be formally trained in science education. Many identify as discipline-based education researchers (DBER) but assert that their SFES and DBER roles are nonequivalent. SFES have garnered university administrator support through varied science education activities, and these insights into the evolving role of scientists in science education have implications for many stakeholders.
| S-EPMC6551186 | 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: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
Project description:This review summarises recent evidence about the interaction between bone, the immune system and cartilage in disabling conditions such as osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and spondyloarthritis. These topics have been recently discussed at the 'OsteoRheumatology' conference held in Genoa in October 2014. The meeting, at its 10th edition, has been conceived to bring together distinguished international experts in the fields of rheumatic and metabolic bone diseases with the aim of discussing emerging knowledge regarding the role of the bone tissue in rheumatic diseases. Moreover, this review focuses on new treatments based on underlying the pathophysiological processes in rheumatic diseases. Although, a number of issues still remain to be clarified, it seems quite clear that in clinical practice, as well as in basic and translational research, there is a need for more knowledge of the interactions between the cartilage, the immune system and the bone. In this context, 'OsteoRheumatology' represents a potential new discipline providing a greater insight into this interplay, in order to face the multifactorial and complex issues underlying common and disabling rheumatic diseases.
| S-EPMC4632147 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the extent to which peer reviewers and journals editors address study funding and authors' conflicts of interests (COI). Also, we aimed to assess the extent to which peer reviewers and journals editors reported and commented on their own or each other's COI.Study design and methodsWe conducted a systematic survey of original studies published in open access peer reviewed journals that publish their peer review reports. Using REDCap, we collected data in duplicate and independently from journals' websites and articles' peer review reports.ResultsWe included a sample of original studies (N = 144) and a second one of randomized clinical trials (N = 115) RCTs. In both samples, and for the majority of studies, reviewers reported absence of COI (70% and 66%), while substantive percentages of reviewers did not report on COI (28% and 30%) and only small percentages reported any COI (2% and 4%). For both samples, none of the editors whose names were publicly posted reported on COI. The percentages of peer reviewers commenting on the study funding, authors' COI, editors' COI, or their own COI ranged between 0 and 2% in either one of the two samples. 25% and 7% of editors respectively in the two samples commented on study funding, while none commented on authors' COI, peer reviewers' COI, or their own COI. The percentages of authors commenting in their response letters on the study funding, peer reviewers' COI, editors' COI, or their own COI ranged between 0 and 3% in either one of the two samples.ConclusionThe percentages of peer reviewers and journals editors who addressed study funding and authors' COI and were extremely low. In addition, peer reviewers and journal editors rarely reported their own COI, or commented on their own or on each other's COI.
| S-EPMC10249818 | 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