Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Peerage of Science
Janne-Tuomas Seppänen, PhD
#crossref14
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
"Provide ships or sails adapted to the heavenly breezes, and there will be some who will brave even that void."
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
Andrzej Mirecki
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
Peer Review!
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
Peer Review!
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
Exclusive submission
Peer Review!
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
Exclusive submission
Exclusive nomination of peers
Peer Review!
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
Exclusive submission
Exclusive nomination of peers
Exclusive use of reviews
S T A P
S T E M
F A I L
Richard HortonEditor of Lancet
“peer review is biased, unjust,
unaccountable, incomplete, easily
fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant,
occasionally foolish, and frequently
wrong”
Richard Smith
ex-Editor of BMJ
“A woeful tale of the uselessness of
peer review”
“Peer review: a flawed process at the
heart of science and journals”
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
WHY?
- Peer reviewers feel they are doing housework?
- Appointed authority (editor) nominates just two
or three judges
- What is the consequence of failing as peer
reviewer?
- What is the consequence of excelling as peer
reviewer?
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
Peerage of Science
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
Give authors some ownership
Give reviewers some ownership
Let everybody (incl. Editor) choice on anonymity
Judge the peer reviewers, maker it matter to them!
Allow concurrent consideration across journals, or…
at least share the peer reviews
Old Henry’s Peerage of Science
Method comparison - duration
unpredictable, long
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
Peerage of ScienceAuthor decides,
enforced
Method comparison - duration
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
20 days...... 2.5 peer reviews
Peerage of ScienceAuthor decides,
enforced
Method comparison - duration
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
Old Henry’s Peerage of Science
Method comparison – who reviews
Editor solicitsreviews
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
Peerage of Science
Editor may solicitreviews
Method comparison – who reviews
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
Peerage of Science
Editor may solicitreviews + Peers can
engage freely
Method comparison – who reviews
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
Old Henry’s Peerage of Science
Method comparison – quality control
Editor knowsreviewers
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
Peerage of ScienceEditor knowsreviewers
Alfred R. Wallace ([email protected])
Method comparison – who reviews
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
Alfred R. Wallace ([email protected])
Peerage of Science
+ peer reviews arepeer-reviewed
Editor knowsreviewers
Method comparison – who reviews
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
Old Henry’s Peerage of Science
Method comparison – submissions
sequential
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
Peerage of Science
first concurrent, thensequential
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
Peerage of Science
first concurrent, thensequential
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
Thank you!
Janne-Tuomas Seppänen, PhD
#crossref14
@JanneSeppanen, @peeragescience
