<Apologies for cross posting>
Good afternoon,
A cornucopia of peer-review related items for your perusal today. The
fourth post in the Case for Open Research series is now available, this
time turning its attention to peer review. This blog follows on from the
last and asks -*if peer review is working why are we facing issues like
increased retractions and the inability to reproduce considerable
proportion of the literature?*(Spoiler alert - peer review only works
sometimes.)
"The case for Open Research: does peer review work?" is available at:
https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=188
Published alongside this post is the write-up from a series of
discussions about peer review held last year by Cambridge University
Press with Cambridge researchers who act as editors of journals.
"Lifting the lid on peer review" is available at:
https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=759
In addition a Discussion Paper based on my PhD research into peer review
is also available in Apollo, Cambridge University's repository (abstract
below)
"The Peer Review Paradox: An Australian case study" is available at
https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/256773
The first three blogs in 'The case for Open Research' series are:
* The case for Open Research: the mis-measurement problem
https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=713
* The case for Open Research: the authorship problem
https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=720
* The case for Open Research: reproducibility, retractions &
retrospective hypotheses
https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=727
Regards,
Danny
Citation
Kingsley, D. A.(2016).The Peer Review Paradox: An Australian case study
http://dx.doi.org/10.17863/CAM.708
Abstract
This paper discusses the results of a series of 42 interviews with
Chemists, Computer Scientists and Sociologists conducted in 2006-2007 at
two Australian universities. All academics perform peer review with
later career researcher usually taking a greater load. The amount and
type of review undertaken differs between disciplines. In general,
review of journal articles and conference papers is unpaid work although
reviewing books (a much larger task) often results in at least an offer
of a free book from the publishers. Reviewing of grant proposals and
theses does attract an honorarium, but these are insignificant amounts.
Most interviewees indicated that reviewing is part of what is expected
in academia, and that it offers the benefit of early access to new
research results. The competing requirements of an academic's peer group
and the institution at which they work has meant a sharp increase in the
number of papers published over the past decade. This in turn has made
finding referees difficult, and the fact the work goes unrecognised by
the performance measurement process adds to the problem. The claim of
certain conferences that their papers are refereed is met with some
cynicism, even in Computer Science, which normally uses conferences as
its main channel of peer reviewed communication. Overall these findings
open the question of whether the amount of effort expended in peer
review is justified.
--
Dr Danny Kingsley
Head, Office of Scholarly Communication
Cambridge University Library
West Road, Cambridge CB39DR
P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437
M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564
E: da...@cam.ac.uk
T: @dannykay68
B: https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/
S: http://www.slideshare.net/DannyKingsley
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3636-5939
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
