Upload
frontiersin
View
261
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Frontiers Collaborative Review
- Back to basics
- How it actually works
- Future engagement and latest developments
How different is it?
Key principles
- Collaborative – unites the authors and reviewers in a direct online dialogue
- Objective – peer review will concentrate on technical rather than subjective concerns
BioMed Central ‘inclusive’ peer review, PLOS One focuses on technical concerns.
- Transparent – reviewers and editor names acknowledged on published papers.
BioMed Central, BMJ, F1000Research - publish names, full reports and pre-publication discussion. Copernicus - Interactive Public Peer-Review.
- Rigorous – questionnaires for each article types, with focus on validity of research
Rubriq - ScoreCard, Peerage of Science - pre-submission questionnaires
How efficient is it?A
vera
ge r
evie
w t
ime
(Day
s )
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
105
9792 90
84 8277
74 74 74 74 7369 67 66
62 61
25
Average review time (submission to acceptance) per field at Frontiers
Data as of June 2015
How efficient is it?Fr
equ
ency
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Review time analysis
Submission to Acceptance (days)
50% of all papers: 37-92 days
75% of all papers: 21-122 days
Average time from submission to acceptance for all Frontiers Journals
Median time from submission to acceptance for all Frontiers Journals
86
52
Data as of June 2015
How efficient is it?
PLOS One (2013)Average: 134 daysMedian*: 104 days
PNAS (as of 2015)Average: 152 days
Frontiers (as of 2015)
Average: 86 daysMedian*: 52 days
Open Biology, Royal Society (as of 2015)Average: 96 days
eLIFE (2014)
Median*: 90 days
Journal of Applied Mathematics, Hindawi (2013)
Median*: 88 days
Data as of June 2015
How efficient is it?
Data on iterations in the Review Forum (RF):
Average # comments posted in RF by participants 4Median # comments posted in RF by participants 3
Average MS resubmission 1.8Median MS resubmission 1
Collaborative? Yes. But not too much.
Data as of June 2015
Current and future developments
- Plagiarism check for ALL submissions(iThenticate program)
- Conflicts of interest between editors and authors
- Final validation stage(all files received, permissions for
figures or ethics committees provided, no COI or plagiarism issues left)
- Policy on authorship changes and disputes
Current and future developments
- Plagiarism check for ALL submissions(iThenticate program)
- Conflicts of interest between editors and authors
- Final validation stage(all files received, permissions for
figures or ethics committees provided, no COI or plagiarism issues left)
- Policy on authorship changes and disputes
Current and future developments
- Plagiarism check for ALL submissions(iThenticate program)
- Conflicts of interest between editors and authors
- Final validation stage(all files received, permissions for
figures or ethics committees provided, no COI or plagiarism issues left)
- Policy on authorship changes and disputes
Current and future developments
- Plagiarism check for ALL submissions(iThenticate program)
- Conflicts of interest between editors and authors
- Final validation stage(all files received, permissions for
figures or ethics committees provided, no COI or plagiarism issues left)
- Policy on authorship changes and disputes
- Affiliation list selection during submission and on Loop network
- Manuscript length check at submission
- FundRef- Crossmark
- New Associate Editor tab in the Review Forum
- Article type Review Questionnaires per Program
- Algorithm for Associate and Review Editors invitations
Current and future developments
As of June 2015
28.6%
24.3%
28.1% 27.7%
20.6%
Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan
% Acceptance rate manual invitations to REV
22.7%
17.7%
23.3%
19.7%18.0%
Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan
% Acceptance rate manual invitations to RE
Review Editor Smart invitations: Case study Human Neuroscience
% acceptance of manual invitations sent by month to Review Editors (RE) or external Reviewers (REV)
Data as of May 2015
KPI: Decrease % Not expertise declination rate of automatic invitations sent by month (baseline # declined invitations)
Top-10 invitations
Keywords Semantic Keywords Semantic
18.9%
22.3%23.3%
24.6%
14.2% 17.6%
13.4%
21.4%
14.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
Sep-14 Oct-14 Nov-14 Dec-14 Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15
23.1%
29.3%29.0%
40.6%
21.6% 22.3% 20.9% 20.2% 22.4%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
Sep-14 Oct-14 Nov-14 Dec-14 Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15
RE Smart invitations
Top-20 invitations
Data as of May 2015
Accepted
Interested
KPI: Increase % of Acceptance and Interested automatic invitations sent by month (baseline total invitations sent in the month)
Keywords Semantic Keywords Semantic
1.0%
2.4% 2.5%1.9%
3.7%
5.6%
2.7%
4.0%
6.4%
0.2%
0.6%1.0%
1.3%
0.2%
1.0%
0.2%
2.0%
0.6%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
8.0%
Sep-14 Oct-14 Nov-14 Dec-14 Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15
1.4% 1.2% 1.5%0.9%
1.9% 1.9%2.4%
1.5%
4.0%
0.0% 0.3%
0.8%1.4%
0.3% 0.6%
0.5%
0.4%
1.9%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
Sep-14 Oct-14 Nov-14 Dec-14 Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15
*Max acceptance rate is 20% (2 reviewers reached)
Top-10 invitations Top-20 invitations
RE Smart invitations
Data as of May 2015
KPI: Decrease % of manuscripts delayed in review assignment (baseline # manuscripts submitted by month)
Keywords Semantic
15.0%
13.0%
16.0%
13.0%11.8% 12.4%
10.6%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%
18.0%
30-Nov-14 28- Feb-1531- Jan-1531- Dec-14 31- March-15 30- April-15 31- May-15
RE Smart invitations
Data as of May 2015
Associate Editor assignment: Case study Microbiology
28.7%
21.2%
33.3%
28.3%
22.8%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15
Acceptance rate of the Associate Editor selected by the author at submission
Submitted month of the manuscript
29.0%22.0%
56.0%
30.0% 29.0%
68.0%72.0%
38.0%
67.0%
50.0%
3.0% 6.0% 6.0% 3.0%
21.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15
% of reasons for declining an invitation the preferred Associate Editor
No expertise
No time
Others & COI
Data as of May 2015