Tag Archives: Peer review

Self-organised scientific crowds to remedy research bureaucracy

In an era where research bureaucracy is the biggest burden bestowed upon scientists, some are seeking practical solutions. Inspired by the science of complex networks, new ways of harnessing the wisdom of the scientific community are emerging. This leads to new decision-making mechanisms to allocated the limited amount of resources, which is bypassing the biggest plague affecting the research endeavour. Michele Catanzaro investigates out-of-the-box solutions to this bureaucratic conundrum for Euroscientist. Read more [...]

The day when science is truly open

One day, we can imagine that science will truly be open. Before we reach that stage, however, a number of issues have to be tackled. Particularly, when it comes to transparency, more suitable evaluation giving adequate credit for researchers involved in contributing to all aspects of the scientific process, most of which were unaccounted for until now, and optimum use of the availability of very large sets of data. Ultimately, life as a scientist in the era of web 2.0 is bound to change beyond recognition. Read more [...]

Jan Velterop: further opening science thanks to a cultural shift

This is the first of a series of articles and interview in our forthcoming special issue on Open Science due to be published on 22nd June. In this exclusive interview with EuroScientist, Jan Velterop, an active advocate of open access, gives his opinion about how scholarly publishing is going to play a role in the evolution of research towards more open science. He outlines the types of hurdles present along the way, in relation to copyright and the peer review process, among others. He also touches upon what, he believes, needs to change in the behaviour of scientists themselves and that of academic institutions Read more [...]

Reviewer anonymity: a hindrance to self-correction in science?

The culture and conditions of the scientific process have evolved in such a way—with greater collaboration and greater competition than ever before--that anonymity no longer serves its purpose. It is therefore time to reflect on the best mechanisms that can be introduced to ensure greater study reproducibility and replicability. Read more [...]

Kamila Markram: changing the way academics work

In this exclusive interview with EuroScientist, Kamila Markram explains how Frontiers, the open access academic publisher she co-founded is designed to remedy some of the shortcomings of the current academic publishing process. She talks about reinventing peer review by making it possible to exchange views, introducing altmetrics and making science attractive to young minds. She also introduces Loop, a social media network for scientists designed to be integrated wherever scientists are present, in places such as online publications and universities web sites. Read more [...]

ScienceOpen: the next wave of Open Access?

The internet is transforming the way researchers communicate. And the pace of change is increasing. A number of issues have arisen under increasing public scrutiny. These include peer-review transparency, open data, evaluation of research impact—both based on articles and authors—as well as research reproducibility. At the same time, demand for real time Open Access (OA) to the latest scientific and medical results has rocketed. Read more [...]

Alternative modes of research funding: exceptions or growing trend?

Peer-review of projects dominates when it comes to decision on how to allocate funding for science. But is it really the best way? Funders certainly think so. Over 95% of biomedical funding in the UK, for example, relied on peer-review grant allocations, a 2012 report found. In the absence of tried and tested alternative, peer review has become the default solution. But there is a clear demand for new and less onerous ways of funding research. Read more [...]

Mentors, mates or metrics: what are the alternatives to peer review?

You think that scientists, being quite clever people, would be able to agree on the best way to rank each other's work. Oh no, not any longer. For this article, the EuroScientist asked Science, Cell and Nature as well as eLife and independent commentators to go on the record with their thoughts on how they see the peer review system, as it stands, and what alternatives should be considered. Read more [...]

Evaluation: dogma of excellence replaced by scientific diversity

The current dogma says that the largest part of available research funds must be assigned only to the best scientists. This way, researchers are put in competition with each other . Only a small fraction will be able to obtain the research funds needed to fully develop their own scientific projects. There is a fundamental flaw in this strategy. If some competition is good for public research, it is clear that there is a threshold beyond which competition creates more adverse than positive effects. Read more [...]

Mary Phillips: The academic evaluation conundrum

Mary Phillips has worked as an academic in biomedical sciences at Oxford University, UK, as a funder with the Wellcome Trust, in London, and as director of research planning for University College London. Find out her unique perspective on the limitations of the existing evaluation systems, be it for academic institutions or individual scientists. In this exclusive interview with the EuroScientist, she shares the lessons learned from her various positions related to academia. Read more [...]