« This report identifies the challenges particularly relevant for the SSH, such as different and thus often conflicting research paradigms or epistemological styles of reviewers
and applicants or authors; difficulty in many SSH disciplines to define and evaluate research methodology compared to STEM disciplines; the lack of…
« L’évaluation ouverte ou la révision ouverte de travaux pourrait être la prochaine révolution du libre accès. Alors que le Plan S prévoit que la plupart des publications scientifiques soient librement accessibles en ligne d’ici 2021, un nouveau mouvement d’ouverture prend de l’ampleur sous le nom d’open peer review ou littéralement…
« Emerald Publishing is piloting a crowd review process with Filestage to enhance the peer review process and improve the quality and speed of publishing.
Filestage provides a web application that enables easy sharing, commenting and approving of documents in the browser. Reviewers can mark required changes to files directly…
« Et si l’avenir du peer-reviewing devait s’imaginer à l’écart des grands éditeurs scientifiques privés ? C’est l’une des convictions de Denis Bourguet, chercheur au Centre de Biologie pour la Gestion des Populations à l’INRAE. Il est l’un des fondateurs de la plateforme…
« A final report on the results of the post-publication open peer review experiment that took place from October 2018 to June 2019 within the HIRMEOS project has been published. The project has included the implementation of an annotation service on the OpenEdition Books platform. In order…
« On January 23-24, 2020, COAR (Confederation of Open Access Repositories) convened a meeting to investigate the potential for a common, distributed architecture that would connect peer review with resources in repositories. The aim of the meeting, hosted by Inria in Paris, France, was to share the current workflows of various…
« The Publications Division of the American Chemical Society (ACS) is pleased to announce that reviewers of ACS journal articles can now claim credit for their efforts through ORCID. This new collaboration will provide acknowledgement for reviewers’ crucial contributions to the scholarly publication process. (…) »
« This document summarises recent developments in the automation of the editorial and peer review process. It discusses the opportunities for AI to support editors and reviewers, as well as the ethical challenges in terms of the potential to cause bias in the publishing system. It focuses most on the challenges…
« (…) The result of an examination of literature assisted the creation of a novel taxonomy of types of software available in the market. This new classification is divided into nine categories as follows: (I) Identification and social media, (II) Academic search engines, (III) Journal-abstract matchmakers, (IV) Collaborative text editors, (V)…
« Peer review is embedded in the core of our scholarly knowledge generation systems, conferring legitimacy on research while distributing academic capital and prestige on individuals. Despite its critical importance, it curiously remains poorly understood in a number of dimensions. In order to address this, we have programmatically analysed peer review…
