Scientific Thinking What Role Does Peer Review Play in the Process of Science?
[From the commodity "The changing forms and expectations of peer review" by Serge Horbach and Willem Halffman, published in Research Integrity and Peer Review, 2018, 3:8]
This is a wonderful article that provides a comprehensive discussion of peer review in the context of scientific quality and integrity. Here are some highlights from the article.
– Provides context for arguments around the office of peer review in ensuring scientific quality/integrity. This includes references from those arguing that it performs that office adequately, to others that fence it fails miserably.
– It discusses the historical evolution of peer-review, arguing that it did not become a mainstream periodical practise until subsequently the Second World War.
– Explains how the desire to ensure fairness and objectivity led to single-blind, double-bullheaded, and triple-blind reviewing (where even the handling editor does not know the identify of the writer). Run across table below:
– Discusses the evidence for bias (peculiarly gender and institutional-affiliation bias) in peer review.
– It is interesting that the same business for reviewer bias has led to diametrically opposite forms of peer review: double-blind peer review and open peer review.
– With the advent of actress-journal publication outlets, such equally pre-print archives, there has been word that peer review should serve less the role of quality assurance, and more than the goal of providing context and connexion to existing literature.
– Makes the argument that i of the motivations behind "registered reports", where journals decide to publish a paper based on its inquiry design — independently of its results — is that this would provide a greater incentive to undertake replications.
– Related to the replication crisis and publication bias, peer review at some journals has moved to re-focussing assessment away from novelty and statistical significance, and towards importance of the research question and soundness of research design.
– Another evolution in peer review has been the creation of software to assist journals and reviewers in identifying plagiarism and to discover statistical errors and irregularities.
– Bogus intelligence is existence looked to in order to address the burdensome chore of reviewing always-increasing numbers of scientific manuscripts. The following quote offers an intriguing await at a possible, AI future of peer review: "Chedwich deVoss, the director ofStatReviewer,even claims: 'In the not-also-distant future, these budding technologies will blossom into extremely powerful tools that will make many of the things nosotros struggle with today seem trivial. In the futurity, software will be able to complete subject-oriented review of manuscripts. […] this would enable a fully automated publishing process – including the conclusion to publish.'"
– Given the increasingly important role that statistics play in scientific research, there is an incipient movement for journals to employ statistical experts to review manuscripts, including the contracting of reviewing to commercial providers.
– Mail service-publication review, such as that offered by PubPeer, has as well expanded peer review exterior the decision to publish research.
– Another movement in peer review has been to introduce interactive discussion between the reviewer, the author, and external "peers" earlier the editor makes their decision. Though this is not mentioned in the commodity, this is the model of peer review in place at the periodical Economics: The Open Access, Open Assessment E-periodical .
– The commodity concludes the discussion by noting that as academic publishing has get large business organization, with high submission and subscription fees charged to authors and readers, in that location is an increasing sense that academic publishers should be held responsible for the quality of their product. This has — and volition have even more so in the future — consequences for peer review.
To read the full article, click here .
Source: https://replicationnetwork.com/2018/10/02/does-peer-review-ensure-scientific-integrity-should-it-can-it/
0 Response to "Scientific Thinking What Role Does Peer Review Play in the Process of Science?"
Postar um comentário