O slideshow foi denunciado.
Utilizamos seu perfil e dados de atividades no LinkedIn para personalizar e exibir anúncios mais relevantes. Altere suas preferências de anúncios quando desejar.

Ivone Cabral – WG5: Scientific Publishing Innovations and the Future of Peer Review and Journals

64 visualizações

Publicada em

With the progress towards open science, scientific communication is facing a new wave of innovations towards more openness and speed of research publication which will deeply affect the way the peer review function is carried out and the overall role of journals in assuring quality and adding value to manuscripts.

Several initiatives are promoting the generalized adoption of open access preprints as a formal beginning stage of research publication, which has been common since the 90’s in the physics community. And, in the last decade, new ways to carry out the evaluation of manuscripts have emerged either to replace or to improve the traditional methods, which are widely criticized as being slow and expensive in addition to lacking transparency.

Quality nonprofit journals from emerging and developing countries have succeeded to follow the main innovations brought by the Internet. In addition to the technicalities of the digital publishing, there is a wide adoption of Open Access in the international flow of scientific information. The new wave of innovations that affect the peer review function and the changing role of journals pose new challenges to the emerging and developing countries in regard of scientific publishing. The adoption of these innovations is essential for progress of SciELO as a leading open access program to enhance scientific communication.

The scope of this workshop aims at an in-depth analysis and discussion of the state of art and main trends of the peer review function, the modalities of carrying it out as well as of the increasing adoption of mechanisms to speed publication such as preprints and how they affect and potentially renew the role of journals. These recommendations will guide SciELO policies on manuscript evaluation and on the adoption of preprint publications.

Publicada em: Ciências
  • Seja o primeiro a comentar

  • Seja a primeira pessoa a gostar disto

Ivone Cabral – WG5: Scientific Publishing Innovations and the Future of Peer Review and Journals

  2. 2. 1. TRADITIONAL PEER REVIEW SYSTEM vs OPEN SCIENCE IN A HYPERCONNECTED WORLD • The closed peer review system (typical of 20th century) • It is static, takes long time, not opened, not free, implies high cost, cannot be updated, it does not allow corrections, has no transparency, low in interactivity. • A probable open reviewing system is the opposite (aligned with 21st century technology) • It is dynamic, is immediate, open, free, low cost, can be updated continuously, allows corrections, has transparency and fosters high interactivity with the peers and author.
  3. 3. 1. TRADITIONAL PEER REVIEW SYSTEM vs OPEN SCIENCE IN A HYPERCONNECTED WORLD • What we need to accelerate this shift from 20th to 21st practice: 1) to change the Academic culture (moving from quantitative metric value – “how many”- to qualitative metric – “what and how”) 2) to convince the funding agencies and professional organizations to create new incentives for the promotion of post-publication analysis of the science articles.
  4. 4. 1. TRADITIONAL PEER REVIEW SYSTEM vs OPEN SCIENCE IN A HYPERCONNECTED WORLD • What we need to accelerate this shift from 20th to 21st practice: 3. to stimulate journals to experiment with alternative publication models, Ex. Fast track of Memórias do Instituto Osvaldo Cruz 4. The information should be spread faster 5. The paper is open to reader at the same time that it is submitted to a peer review. 6. The full text of the manuscript, with the label of “Under Review”, can be accessed by the reader before a final decision of the Editorial Board.
  5. 5. • After 350 years of scientific publishing… 1. The set “editor/publisher - (journals)” has a central role in defining the “shape” and “quality” of science. Though the formal peer review process is relatively new (from the second half of the 20th century) it seems to have reached a saturation point. 2. Instead of one-three person deciding for what to publish, why not try the wisdom of the crowd, i.e., hundreds of peers around the world making decision under an open and collaborative model? 1. TRADITIONAL PEER REVIEW SYSTEM vs OPEN SCIENCE IN A HYPERCONNECTED WORLD
  6. 6. • Possible future… • The "set" editor/peer reviewer/publisher, i.e., the Journals, cease to be “ the certifying body proxy” of the published science. Probably: • New function to publishers/editors: e.g. providers of " complementary publishing service” 1. TRADITIONAL PEER REVIEW SYSTEM vs OPEN SCIENCE IN A HYPERCONNECTED WORLD
  7. 7. • Possible future… • Consequence • Researchers take the full control of their intelectual output: they can be simultaneously the generators and conveyors of scientific information. Paradigm • pre-print, institutional repository 1. TRADITIONAL PEER REVIEW SYSTEM vs OPEN SCIENCE IN A HYPERCONNECTED WORLD
  8. 8. Guidelines for Journals of the SciELO collection – Alex’s presentation • The Journal of the SciELO collection will choose a type of peer review to inform in the instructions for authors and in the published article. • He has emphasized that some Journal does not inform which peer review system they use.
  9. 9. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTARIES FROM THE GROUP • Why to use a DOI for a rejected manuscript? “It is important to keep the historical record of the scientific editorial decisions”. The manuscript will be online forever. Every reader should have an access to this document, and with a DOI number it will ease to find the document. In fact, a DOI sign helps to find the document. Every document should be accessed by everyone.
  10. 10. Continue… • How we can manage the dispute among members of scientific community? • The community can tell what the information is useful or not. • The scientific information will be published in somewhere. • An useless scientific information could be controlled by someone in somewhere.
  11. 11. Continue… • How we can manage the dispute among members of scientific community? The quality of information is not assured by the Journal, and they sometimes are questioned about how this or that manuscript was published. The valid information is depend on the pressure of the group.
  12. 12. Continue… Questions about the SciELO Guidelines • In latin America people are sacared about open peer review. Some journals do not inform if they are using or not this system. • When the flowchart will be done, it will be use and applied to all journal SciELO collection. • It is a good idea the Journal of Scielo collection specify what kind of peer review is used and include it on instructions for author. The language is in the process of review? Semantic analysis on scientific information is very important. A semantic English language is not universal.
  13. 13. Science communication in an open access - Jan Velterop’s presentation • PREprint is a not an adequate word choice… The expression do not mean the whole idea behind preprint. • There is different type of quality. • Citing a high impact factor journal is a guarantee of quality? Publish in a prestigious Journal is really an insurance policy of good quality of the manuscript? • Preprint is an opportunity to share the results of research. It is faster, reaches more people and less expensive.
  14. 14. Science communication in an open access - Jan Velterop’s presentation • And what about quality? About peer review? • A responsible author, usually, before sending a manuscript to a Journal, the author ask for a fellow to review the manuscript in an informal way. • If you want to guarantee the quality of Science, put open to the community. The quality of scientific research is open to everyone. • The idea is simplify the question about peer review, and reinforce a collaborative effect worldwide.
  15. 15. Discussion • Print Server and Journal with different number, with different status – rejected. Is the Preprint Scenario worse than we have today? What is your opinion? – That’s true, it could have different status, title, versions from the same original number (DOI). The manuscript is still there in the repository of Preprint.
  16. 16. • If the manuscript is rejected, it should be deleted from preprint server? • Rejected means the manuscript is not proper to a particular Journal. • Rejection does not mean its an useless article. • If the author submits to a different repository or Preprint, the manuscript will have a different number of DOI for different version of the same article. • In the future, it believes that CrossRef will work on it Discussion
  17. 17. Discussion Could Preprint be the end of a Journal? • The role of Journal is disseminate and validate scientific information, normally at the end of research process; while Preprint is for communicating the results of research in advance, to assure the originality, priority of an idea. How the scientific information will be disseminated? • The journal could select the information from server and work on it and put it on specific community. • Peers are people who understand the subject and give an opinion. • Preprints are accepted now by many funding agencies. Will Capes accept Preprints publication?
  18. 18. F1000RESEARCH OPEN RESEARCH PUBLISHING PLATFORMS. LIZ ALLEN’s presentation • Peer reviews is a broken system, is in crisis, but should be fixed and not abolished’ • Independent opinion is important. Still criticized, peer review is very valuable for validating findings. • Taxonomy of open review: open identities, open reports, open participation, and interaction. • F1000Research post-publication is an open peer review. The status showed at the website is open peer-review.
  19. 19. • How compare the quality of Science, if we compare medical journal for defining health policy with preprint publication? Evidenced base published on scientific Journal F1000RESEARCH OPEN RESEARCH PUBLISHING PLATFORMS. LIZ ALLEN’s presentation
  20. 20. OPEN PEER-REVIEW – EVALUATION OF PREPRINTS IN A REPOSITORY BY GONZALO ALVAREZ AND SONIA CAREGNATO • The main difference between traditional evaluation of journal and preprint is – the article is permanently published (in pre print). • it allows visibility of science and criticism in a collective and permanent way. • There is more transparency on the review process.
  21. 21. ETHICS IN THE EVALUATION OF MANUSCRIPTS. Sonia Vasconcelo’s presentation • An ethical perspective of open peer review and preprint should take into account Brazilian Scenario and culture. • Graduate students sometimes are reluctant to share research findings or do not feel comfortable to share scientific information on a conference, for example. • The open Science movement should talk about ethics and the culture of competition in science and its incentives among earlier-career scholars.
  22. 22. ETHICS IN THE EVALUATION OF MANUSCRIPTS. Sonia Vasconcelo’s presentation • Reviewers should be careful about confidentiality in the review process and they should not borrow ideas and intellectual property from materials undergoing review. • What is the place of confidentiality? What kind of data could be shared? • How to stimulate trust between earlier-career scholars and reviewers? • Otherwise, they will not feel comfortable with a more open, although competitive environment.
  23. 23. Discussion • Cultural changes take time; it’s a matter of time. • Young researcher should be training, and a bad behavior should be punished or not • But, what kind of punishment? • Competition is very strong, and often times be open is perceived as a risk issue for newcomers in science. One challenge is to promote trust among seniors and young scholars when it comes to sharing data of ongoing project.
  24. 24. Discussion • Many young scholars see peer reviewers as a potential threat for publication as they may make undue use of unpublished material. • This culture of openness should be stimulate together with educational initiatives to engaje seniors and youngers in open debate about ethics and due credit in science. • Could preprint be a protection for these sort of ethical issues?
  25. 25. Thank you Muito obrigada! Muchas gracias