The European Association of Science Editors (EASE) is an international community of individuals and associations from diverse backgrounds, linguistic traditions and professional experience in science communication and editing.
The peer review group will be looking at peer review matters such as recognition and rewards; improving workflows, guidelines, good practice and progressive peer review culture.
We aim to work with individuals and other organizations investigating these issues, so that we can incorporate different initiatives.
Scholarly Kitchen posted an article on the death of portable peer review, after Rubriq has closed down due to lack of interest.
Wondering what everyones thoughts on this are. To me, this idea of pre-review was never what ‘portable’ peer review should be about.
I think…[Read more]
Some really interesting talks and posters. Things that caught my eye:
1: abuse of reviewer confidentiality assumptions – Discussing articles with colleagues, Changing own research because of reading submission, etc.
2: authors admitting to suggesting fake reviewers!
3: research showing that using cascading and portable review reduces time to…[Read more]
I can’t help thinking that asking lots of people clutters their email and increases the likelihood of refusals. However, I appreciate that only asking 2 at a time (assuming you need 2 reports) can lead to long delays as people say “no” and you have to move onto the next person.
On balance I would only condone asking, say, 1.5x the number of…[Read more]
I have been following! Hope you’re enjoying it.
Plenty of tweets coming to get a nice idea of the presentations – and the videos on youtube are great.
Saw a lot of interesting slides from the peer review biases session, and the YODA project on data sharing. I have seen so many presentations on the history of peer review I thought I wouldn’t…[Read more]
Interesting study from Nature on author choices of single blind and double blind peer review. Big names and big countries prefer single-blind peer review, and (scientifically) smaller countries choose double peer review more often. No difference in gender.
Interesting data and also expected, knowing the geographical bias in peer review.
What do…[Read more]
Difficult question. Depends on the topic and the knowledge of the field by the editors. I don’t think there is a best way to address this problem. Summer months may be very difficult for editors.
The EASE discussion list had a great conversation about inviting lots of (=too many) reviewers because so few actually respond/agree to review. But this creates a lot of invitations and so a lot of people saying “no” more often because they feel bombarded with invitations. What do you think? What does your journal do?
The Peer Review Committee are pleased to announce the launch of the Peer Review Toolkit
This new suite of resources sits alongside our successful Editor and Author toolkits, to give reviewers of all levels helpful guidance, structure and ideas when it comes to writing reviews, and getting involved in peer review in general.
The resources have…[Read more]