Making Scientific Peer Review Open

Scientific reputation is essential to researchers for their academic advancement, tenure, research grants and fellowships. It relies, most of the times, on quantitative metrics such as the H Index, citation counts, article counts etc. And, of course, getting published in a journal in the first place is down to the age-old tradition of anonymous peer review.

The community has begun to struggle with this approach for many years now. The likes of arXiv (for physics), open access journals and other efforts have begun to look at alternative publishing models, but anonymous referees have remained at the heart of the process.

A new site – Peer Evaluation – hopes to complement the conventional quantitative metric system with a whole new set of qualitative indicators that are comprehensive, transparent and immediately verifiable by researchers and funding institutions, allowing scientists themselves to curate the peer reviewing of their own papers.

Will it succeed? Are we about to see a new dawn for science? Or, will tradition hold sway?

This article has been reproduced from Sciencebase Science News. Copyright David Bradley.

Image reproduced from http://www.london-student.net

© 2017, City Connect News. Copyright Notice & Disclaimer are below.

About David Bradley Science Writer

David Bradley has worked in science communication for more than twenty years. After reading chemistry at university, he worked and travelled in the USA, did a stint in a QA/QC lab and then took on a role as a technical editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry. Then, following an extended trip to Australia, he returned and began contributing as a freelance to the likes of New Scientist and various trade magazines. He has been growing his portfolio and and has constructed the Sciencebase Science News and the Sciencetext technology website. He also runs the SciScoop Science Forum which is open to guest contributors on scientific topics.
Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.