peer-review.md

About

This file collects information related to new approaches to peer review for all aspects of the research cycle, including classical publications (e.g. journal articles, monographs, conference proceedings), funding applications, software and data, and other aspects (e.g. measurement time).

Examples

These examples are roughly sorted by step in research cycle

• Ideas
• Ethical approval
• Pre-registration
• Funding proposals
• Software
• Data
• Protocols
• Publications
  • Journal articles
  • Book chapters
  • Monographs
  • Conferences
• Post-publication peer review
• Teaching
• Infrastructure
  • OpenAIRE Open Peer Review Tender

Events

• International Peer Review Congress
  • September 10-12, 2017 in Chicago

Unsorted

Things listed here have yet to be sorted into the structure above.

• History of peer review
  • Credibility, peer review, and Nature, 1945–1990
• peer review
  • Big names or big ideas: Do peer-review panels select the best science proposals?
    • contrast this with arxiv:0906.1943
      • video
      • citations
      • Borda count
      • tried at NSF
      • discussion
  • Slay peer review ‘sacred cow’, says former BMJ chief
  • Classical peer review: an empty gun
  • the Winnower
  • Axios
  • Publons
  • PubPeer
    • background on founders
  • Peerage of Science
  • Academic Karma
    • sample review
    • overview of indexed preprint servers
    • Anonymous open science agreement form for reviewer
  • PubMed Commons
  • Peer review by endorsement
  • ThinkLab
  • Collaborative Knowledge Foundation (CoKo)
  • ReScience
  • DropDeadPaper
  • Curate Science
  • Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative
  • Matters
  • OpenReview
• NIH Peer review practices reviewed here
  • and here: National Institutes of Health Peer Review: Challenges and Avenues for Reform
• Another one on NIH peer reviewing:
  • Predicting Productivity Returns on Investment: Thirty Years of Peer Review, Grant Funding, and Publication of Highly Cited Papers at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
    • "There was no association between grant percentile ranking and grant outcome as assessed by number of top-10% articles per $million spent. Hence, the seemingly conflicting findings on peer review percentile ranking of grants and subsequent productivity largely reflect differing questions and outcomes. Taken together, these findings raise questions about how best National Institutes of Health (NIH) should use peer review assessments to make complex funding decisions. "
• Schroter S et al., 2010. Surveys of current status in biomedical science grant review: funding organisations' and grant reviewers' perspectives. BMC Med 8:62.
• Which science to fund? Time to review peer review (in NZ)
• Graves A et al., 2011. Funding grant proposals for scientific research: retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel. BMJ 343:d4797.
• Videos permitted as part of applications for NIH funding
• Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial
• Maintaining Confidentiality in NIH Peer Review
  • Reminder About Your Responsibilities in Maintaining the Integrity of NIH Peer Review
    • "We all share the same objective: ensuring a fair review, free of bias, so that the most meritorious applications are identified for funding consideration by NIH. The peer review system belongs to the entire biomedical research community, not just to NIH — let’s do all we can as a community to preserve its integrity."
• Protecting the Security of NIH Grant Applications
• Op-Ed: How Traditional Publishing Hurts Scientific Progress
• Episcience Project
  • comment by Tim Gowers
• "peer recognition rather than peer review"
• Towards an analytical understanding of peer review in research funding
• Peer review - the nuts and bolts
• Rowland F. The peer-review process. Learned Publishing. 2002;15(4): 247–258. doi: 10.1087/095315102760319206
• The End of Peer Review and Traditional Publishing as We Know It
• Advice on writing reviews of academic papers
• Using simplified peer review processes to fund research: a prospective study
• Independent Peer Review Manifesto
  • Developing the first Open Peer Review Module for Institutional Repositories
• The Promise and Perils of Pre-Publication Review: A Multi-Agent Simulation of Biomedical Discovery Under Varying Levels of Review Stringency
• The rise of patient peer review
• The Self-Journal of Science
• Antipattern
• Changes for EGU interactive journals: new library and payment concept
• Beyond open access: open discourse, the next great equalizer
• The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise
  • code
• This new study may explain why peer review in science often fails
• When does peer review make no damn sense?
• An efficiency argument for post-publication review
• International Conference on Learning Representations
  • brought up by Oriol Pujol at #learnbcn as an example of very rapid conference peer review, completely independent of journals and using OpenReview.net instead
• A Long-Sought Proof, Found and Almost Lost
  • mentions rejections and biases in the peer review system against unknown people
  • nice twist in that he also found the time to work on it in earnest when he retired
• Open Public Review — public peer review of deliverables of H2020 projects around public policy
  • includes DMPs
    • WeGovNow: D6.3 - Data Management Framework
    • OpenGovIntelligence: D6.1 - Data Management Plan
    • SIMPATICO: D1.3 - Data management plan v.1
• Chemistry journal introduces ‘intelligent crowd’ peer review — basically a closed version of Copernicus-style discussion paper review
• Birkbeck to investigate the peer review process in new research project