Securing Trust in Peer Review with PRE-val
•Download as PPT, PDF•
1 like•5,007 views
PRE-val is a service that independently validates peer review processes for scholarly journals. It provides a badge that journals can display to signal that a given article has undergone quality peer review. PRE-val aims to increase transparency and trust in peer review by answering whether an article has truly been peer reviewed and providing information about the journal's review process. It was created due to increasing criticism of traditional peer review and problems like predatory publishers. PRE-val supports best practices in peer review to encourage high-quality review.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (19)
Similar to Securing Trust in Peer Review with PRE-val
Similar to Securing Trust in Peer Review with PRE-val (20)
More from Crossref
More from Crossref (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Securing Trust in Peer Review with PRE-val
- 1. November 2014 Securing Trust & Transparency in Peer Review Adam Etkin, Founder and Managing Director http://www.pre-val.org @PeerReviewEval
- 2. What is PRE-val? A service that works with the publisher and journal to provide independent validation of the review process A badge that publishers can display in various places – search results, article pages, article-level metrics – to signal to readers that quality peer review has been conducted A window into a given journal’s peer review process accessible by end users PRE-val answers the most basic, and important, question about scholarly works: “Has this article really been peer reviewed?” PRE-val supports quality peer review. 2
- 3. Why do we need PRE-val? Traditional peer review & scholarly publishers seem to be under constant criticism. Emergence of “predatory” publishers High-profile cases of faulty research being published Difficulty distinguishing peer-reviewed research from non-reviewed content in journals – publishing in a peer-reviewed journal does not equate with peer review for every article “Publish then filter” and “Publishing is a button” attitude 3
- 4. Why do we need PRE-val? 4
- 5. Why do we need PRE-val? Surveys show peer review is valued by researchers & authors. “The qualitative data also point to the fact that peer review is the central pillar of trust.” University of Tennessee and CIBER Research Ltd, December 2013 Sources: Sense About Science; Taylor & Francis; CIBER Research; NPG/Palgrave Macmillan Author Insights survey 5 Most (69%) researchers are satisfied with the current system of peer review but only a third think that the current system is the best we can do Most (84%) believe that without peer review there would be no control in scientific communication 78% of OA authors prefer traditional, rigorous peer review Only 20% want basic check followed by post-publication review Almost all researchers (91%) believe that their last paper was improved as a result of peer review While many want a faster process with fewer rounds, the overwhelming majority (~70%) prefer to wait for thorough review 93% of science authors consider quality of PEER REVIEW when deciding where to publish
- 6. Less time to review more information 6 Total Peer Reviewed Journals 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Year 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 *B.-C. Björk, R. Annikki, and M. Lauri. Global annual volume of peer reviewed scholarly articles and the share available via different Open Access options *The National Science Board estimates the average annual growth of the indexes within the Web of Science to be 2.5% (See: Science and Engineering Indicators 2010, chapter 5, page 29) *The stm report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing (2009) *http://dan.corlan.net/cgi-bin/medline-trend?Q= Journals 28,000+ journals, and growing Total Peer Reviewed Articles Published 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Year Articles 2 million articles in 2013 More information than ever, less time to sort through it all.
- 7. Not just one “right” approach Peer review is not one thing, and it cannot be assumed. The number of varied approaches to peer review is increasing, yet readers often assume it is a uniform practice Journals with high standards have no clear way of routinely showing these standards at the article level Trends toward “lite” peer review & critics are dominating the discussion, while quality has a harder time finding a voice This leads to confusion and questions about trust . . . 7
- 9. A Lesson From The Car Industry Metrics/Filters = Knowledge = Power Looking for a new car? • MPG • Size • Speed • Features • Safety • Cost Evaluating a journal? • Impact Factor • Audience • Speed • Altmetrics • Peer Review (PRE) • Cost
- 10. 10 Community Different approaches, different services….one goal: Working together to educate and support
- 11. We believe in peer review PRE-val creates incentives to use best practices in peer review. Recognizes journals with an editor-in-chief or other overseeing editor PRE-val encourages journals to use quality reviewers Provides transparency into iteration through review to improve the science and clarity of a paper Helps promote use of best practices, which are markers of commitment to better peer review approaches 11
- 12. Technical flow – Low/No work by publisher 12 First, we sit down together to learn about your process. PRE-val configuration takes into account your unique processes and preferences related to what you want to make public/transparent. <metadata>PEER REVIEW</metadata> Publisher Manuscript Submission/ Peer Review Tracking System PRE API #1 Low/no development work on part of publisher or manuscript submission/ peer review system Publisher places badge on - Journal article page - Search results - Aggregator sites - Article metrics - anywhere else a signal of peer review is important
- 14. Info about peer review process: • Type of Review • Rounds of review • Roles participating Other measures of screening quality: • COPE member? • Plagiarism screening? • Retraction policy? Optional info: • Reviewer comments • Reviewer names 14
- 15. November 2014 Securing Trust & Transparency in Peer Review Adam Etkin, Founder and Managing Director http://www.pre-val.org @PeerReviewEval