Organizer Philip N. Cohen and Micah Altman Website or social media links philipncohen.com micahaltman.com Current stage of development Ready to be implemented Project duration 2 years Update Have you integrated any feedback received? concept of a ‘market’ for peer review clearly resonated with a number of commentator which stimulated a number of reflections on the…
Share your views about preprints – take the surveyASAPbio and the attendees of the #biopreprints2020 workshop are looking to get community feedback on the perceived benefits and concerns around preprints. We are seeking perspectives from a wide range of stakeholders involved in research communication to better understand how preprinting is perceived across stakeholder groups and research disciplines. Complete…
Peiling Wang, Professor, University of Tennessee-Knoxville & Dietmar Wolfram, Professor, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee In a recent open-access (OA) peer-reviewed article1, we report on the rapid growth of open peer review (OPR) journals from 38 in 2001 to 617 in 2019 with a significant increase since 2017 (the dataset2 is available at Zenodo). One of the…
Organizer Victor Venema, Grassroots Review Journals, University of Bonn, Germany Website or social media links Concept homepage Development server GIT Future integrations Mastodon Twitter Reddit Current stage of development Main design for the communities (review journals) is ready to be implemented. Multiple communication channels set-up apart from a newsletter/distribution list. Project duration Years, but for…
On February 7-9, 2018, editors, publisher, funders, and researchers gathered at HHMI Headquarters in Chevy Chase, MD to discuss innovations in peer review. A clear majority of participants at the meeting agreed that publishing peer review reports (ie, the contents of peer review, whether anonymized or not), would benefit the research community by increasing transparency of…
On February 7-9, 2018, editors, publisher, funders, and researchers gathered at HHMI Headquarters in Chevy Chase, MD to discuss innovations in peer review. A clear majority of participants at the meeting agreed that publishing peer review reports (ie, the contents of peer review, whether anonymized or not), would benefit the research community by increasing transparency…
By Jessica Polka and Ron Vale, ASAPbio Opening the content of peer review reports—whether they are anonymous or not—will improve their quality, ensure that ideas that emerge through review are accessible to other researchers, and enable innovation and reform. Peer review is considered an essential standard of scientific publishing. Despite complaints, most scientists feel that…
By Robert Kiley, Head of Open Research, Wellcome Introduction In November 2016 Wellcome became the first research funder to launch a publishing platform for the exclusive use of its grantholders. Wellcome Open Research (WOR), run on behalf of Wellcome by Faculty of 1000 (F1000), uses a model of immediate publication followed by invited, post-publication peer…
By Dr. Stuart Taylor, Publishing Director, The Royal Society, London, UK Peer review has been a key part of the research communication system for centuries. Scientists absolutely depend on a research literature that is as reliable, reproducible and trustworthy as possible in order to inform their future work and to help explain other findings. Subjecting…
Lachlan Coin, Institute for Molecular Bioscience, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia Darya Vanichkina, Centenary Institute, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia Alicia Oshlack, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne, Australia Transparency and openness are extremely beneficial for science. The immediate and open publication of findings via preprint servers results in rapid dissemination of…
Gary McDowell, Future of Research and Tufts University, and Pandelis Perakakis, Mind, Brain and Behaviour Research Centre, University of Granada, Spain Please address any correspondence to garymcdow@gmail.com and peraka@ugr.es In reforming the culture of peer review and moving towards a system that embraces the use and recognition of pre-print servers, we are cognizant of the…
Traditional journal clubs are present in most labs and departments bringing together early career researchers to discuss and review a chosen article. These groups effectively perform peer review but often don’t share the comments with the authors. This year ASAPbio is launching a fund to support current journal clubs in performing (and sharing) peer reviews…
In our November 2023 community call, we heard from Lonni Besancon (Assistant Professor, Linkoping University) about his work exposing fraudulent and unreliable science. Lonni began with an overview of how he started researching reliability issues and highlighted that this is not his primary role; indeed, it is a large issue in the current system that…
Take cOAlition S’s survey by the November 29th deadline to support a new model of publishing cOAlition S, an initiative of more than 2 dozen national funders and charitable organizations, has recently released the “Towards Responsible Publishing” proposal. The two key features of this proposal, as stated in an introductory blog post, are: 1. Authors,…
The practice of preprinting in the life sciences has grown rapidly. In addition to accelerating scientific publication, preprinting also has the potential to open new avenues of communication among researchers. For example, preprint peer review offers tremendous potential for changing the culture of scientific assessment, broadening participation, and enhancing the robustness of scholarship. While only…
“[T]he Federation of American Scientists (FAS) is partnering with the Center for Open Science and the Wilson Center to source ideas that can chart a course for the next decade of U.S. government action.” See below our response to the call. Motivation: What is an important challenge and/or opportunity in open science you hope to address? Why and why…
Despite technological advances, the time and amount of data required to publish scientific results in journals has increased. The lengthy process of peer review is contributing significantly to that timeline. One of the ways in which this issue can be improved is preprint peer-review, which has been becoming more popular in recent years with new…