scholarly journals Development of an open peer review system using blockchain and reviewer recommendation technologies

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 104-111
Author(s):  
Dong-Hoon Choi ◽  
Tae-Sul Seo
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Management System ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Communication Model ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Review System ◽  
Blockchain Technology ◽  
Data Interchange ◽  
Academic Communication

In order to create a transparent and sound academic communication ecosystem centered on researchers, we developed a system that applied blockchain technology to an open peer review system. In this study, an open peer review system was developed based on Hyperledger Fabric, which is a private blockchain. The system can be operated in connection with the reviewer recommendation module of the existing submission management system. In the reviewer recommendation module, reviewers are recommended by excluding co-authors and colleagues after an expertise test. The blockchain system performs an open peer review process based on smart contracts, while the submission management system selects reviewers for peer review. A service broker intervenes between these two systems for data interchange. The system developed herein is expected to be used as a researcher-centered scholarly communication model in the open science era, in which the intervention of publishers is minimized, and authors and reviewers (as researchers) are centered.

scholarly journals Controvérsias sobre Redes Abertas de Produção de Conhecimento e de Comunicação Científica │ Controversies on Knowledge Production and Scientific Communication Open Networks

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christiana Soares de Freitas
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Sharing ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Scientific Communication ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Review System ◽  
Open Networks ◽  
Communication Processes ◽  
Central Elements

RESUMO O objetivo do artigo é analisar questões centrais associadas ao conceito de ciência aberta na sociedade contemporânea, evidenciando características  de modos distintos de produção de conhecimento. Processos de comunicação científica  são discutidos, com foco em  temas como o sistema aberto de revisão por pares, direitos autorais e domínio público, concluindo com uma reflexão crítica a respeito das possibilidades de transformação das características tradicionais do campo de produção de conhecimento a partir da adoção de normas e práticas desenvolvidas em redes de ciência aberta.Palavras-chave: Ciência Aberta; Conhecimento Compartilhado; Processos de Avaliação; Direitos Autorais; Comunicação Científica.ABSTRACT This article aims at discussing central elements associated to the concept of  open science in contemporary societies, pointing out some characteristics that can be associated to distinct modes of knowledge production. Scientific communication processes are discussed, focusing on issues such as the open peer review system, copyright and public domain, concluding with critical considerations about the possibilities of transforming traditional characteristics of the knowledge production field through the adoption of norms and practices developed in open science networks.Keywords: Open Science; Knowledge Sharing; Evaluation Processes; Copyright; Scientific Communication.

IMPROVING THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

2021 ◽  
pp. 82-83
Author(s):  
Oluwole Gbolagunte Ajao ◽  
Adekola Alao
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Research Work ◽  
Developing Nations ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Review System ◽  
Administrative Positions ◽  
Selection Of

SUMMARY: The peer review process has been regarded as an essential part of accepting or rejecting a paper for publication since 1752 when the process was started by The Royal Society of London in the publication entitled “Philosophical Transactions”. In developing countries, one of the primary reasons for submitting pieces for publication is to support promotion in universities. In fact, the argument can be made that the only reason for publishing in developing countries is for faculty promotion. Despite the peer review process being standard practice for scientic journals, many of the research publications on COVID-19 were not subjected to the peer review system. In fact, numerous publications were pre-prints and papers shared by researchers online which were not peer reviewed, yet they were accepted and published by scientic journals in developing nations. When authors start to lose condence in the peer review process of a journal, they are not likely to submit their research work to such journals and this can lead to a diminished impact and reputation of such journals. Additionally, the selection of the assessors by the Editor-in -Chief is usually from the academic space of the editor and from the colleagues of the editor that usually share the editor's view. Contrary to what some editors in the developing countries believe, medical and academic administrative positions do not necessarily result in expertise in the peer review process. An editor can easily identify a poor assessment of an article, from the vitriolic feed-back of the author to the editor about an assessor when a paper is not recommended for publication. This paper provides evidence of and outlines the possible reasons that the peer review process is substandard in developing countries.

scholarly journals HortIM™: An Online Peer Review System for Horticultural Teaching and Extension Instructional Materials

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 138-143
Author(s):  
Michael A. Arnold ◽  
Mary H. Meyer ◽  
Tim Rhodus ◽  
Susan S. Barton
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Instructional Materials ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Review System ◽  
Instructional Videos ◽  
American Society ◽  
Excellence In Science ◽  
Teaching Modules

Based on a survey of the American Society for Horticultural Science (ASHS), membership need was identified for an online peer review system to validate innovation and recognize excellence in science-based teaching and extension scholarship for promotion and tenure purposes. This system would also provide a clearinghouse for instructional materials of merit for use in classrooms, laboratories, and outreach education, which fall outside the parameters of the three academic journals of ASHS. It was determined HortTechnology already provided a valued outlet for peer review of manuscript style teaching and extension scholarship; however, a need was identified for a mechanism to provide peer review of instructional materials which did not conform to a traditional manuscript format. Herein we describe the process that led to the development and launch of HortIM™, a new peer review system for teaching and extension instructional materials. An online peer review process for juried assessment of instructional materials such as articles, bulletins, case studies, fact sheets, instructional videos, teaching modules, and laboratory exercises was developed. A beta test of initial solicited materials in each category was piloted resulting in an initial database of these scholarly materials. This activity culminated in an initial opening of the system for submissions in Fall 2016. This article documents the development of HortIM™, including the submission and review process.

scholarly journals How Many Papers Should Scientists Be Reviewing? An Analysis Using Verified Peer Review Reports

Publications ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 4
Author(s):  
Vincent Raoult
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Publication ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Review System ◽  
Research Fields ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Minimum Number ◽  
Review Reports

The current peer review system is under stress from ever increasing numbers of publications, the proliferation of open-access journals and an apparent difficulty in obtaining high-quality reviews in due time. At its core, this issue may be caused by scientists insufficiently prioritising reviewing. Perhaps this low prioritisation is due to a lack of understanding on how many reviews need to be conducted by researchers to balance the peer review process. I obtained verified peer review data from 142 journals across 12 research fields, for a total of over 300,000 reviews and over 100,000 publications, to determine an estimate of the numbers of reviews required per publication per field. I then used this value in relation to the mean numbers of authors per publication per field to highlight a ‘review ratio’: the expected minimum number of publications an author in their field should review to balance their input (publications) into the peer review process. On average, 3.49 ± 1.45 (SD) reviews were required for each scientific publication, and the estimated review ratio across all fields was 0.74 ± 0.46 (SD) reviews per paper published per author. Since these are conservative estimates, I recommend scientists aim to conduct at least one review per publication they produce. This should ensure that the peer review system continues to function as intended.

scholarly journals Peer Review system: A Systematic Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-23
Author(s):  
Shamima Parvin Lasker
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Systemic Review ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Review System ◽  
The People ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Office Of Research Integrity

Peer review process helps in evaluating and validating of research that is published in the journals. U.S. Office of Research Integrity reported that data fraudulence was found to be involved in 94% cases of misconduct from 228 identified articles between 1994–2012. If fraud in published article are significantly as high as reported, the question arise in mind, were these articles peer reviewed?  Another report said that the reviewers failed to detect 16 cases of fabricated article of Jan Hendrick Schon. Superficial peer reviewing process does not reveals suspicion of misconduct. Lack of knowledge of systemic review process not only demolish the academic integrity in publication but also loss the trust of the people of the institution, the nation, and the world. The aim of this review article is to aware stakeholders specially novice reviewers about the peer review system. Beginners will understand how to review an article and they can justify better action choices in dealing with reviewing an article.

scholarly journals The saga of the peer review process: author’s perspective

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mayank Agrawal ◽  
Suhani Suhani
Keyword(s):  
Time Delay ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Review System ◽  
Whole Process

AbstractPeer review system is the cornerstone of scientific publishing. The indented process is not as tedious as it has become, mainly due to the time delay, unavailability of expert reviewers, and the callous attitude of some. While there have been articles explaining the whole process and expressing the editor’s viewpoints on the peer review system, we wish to present the author’s perspective on this system.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document