1. How to Be A Good Peer Reviewer
A major factor in determining quality in the peer review process are the reviewers. Without peers providing high-quality reviews, the value-add of the peer review process declines. the streamlined process of peer review is complicated when reviewers with good intentions do bad things. A reviewer who does bad things displays behaviors that slow down or lessen the effectiveness of peer review. A good peer reviewer displays efficient behaviors and adds value to the process. The good thing about a reviewer who does bad things is that they can change. There are quite a few ways to shift bad behaviors and habits of reviewers to become not just good, but great peer reviewers, notes Jasmine Wallace in her post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Reviewing is a voluntary task, and a good peer reviewer approaches the job with intentionality. At times, the voluntary job will require more work than you expect. Go into the peer review process with a willing attitude and a desire to truly make the work better. In fact, when we asked the community what makes for a high-quality peer review, the first response was that the reviewers should approach the review with “a desire to review”........(Unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Don’t Trust Scientists? Then Help Collect the Data
Modern scientists operate under massive pressure to publish consistently groundbreaking work in prestigious scientific journals. Most of them also do their work with very few people looking over their shoulder, especially during data collection. This dynamic creates a situation where, for many scientists, being dishonest by falsifying data is both potentially lucrative for one's career and surprisingly easy to do. And while most scientists are honest, data falsification does happen, notes Bradley Allf, in this post in the Scientific American.
The blog post says (quote): While I didn't end up changing the cottonmouth data (you can see them standing out like a sore thumb (tail?) in Figure 4b in my paper), it struck me at the time how much power was wrapped up in just a few numbers on a screen. If I had changed just five data points on a spreadsheet containing hundreds I could have drastically improved my paper's chance of acceptance into a premier journal. It's an extraordinary fact, and not a single person would have known. And while I chose not to falsify my data, this kind of thing does happen........ (Unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Disrupting transcription – How automation is transforming a foundational research method
The transcription of verbal and non-verbal social interactions is a central feature of social research and remains one of the most labour intensive and time consuming parts of many research projects. In this post, in the LSE Impact Blog Daniela Duca explores how the automation of transcription has become standard practice in other industries, such as news media, and considers what this might mean for approaches to analysing and interpreting qualitative data.
The blog post says (quote): Arguably, the easiest way to transcribe would be to leave in all the sounds, delaying any decision on ‘cleaning’ the data, until the transcription is complete. Thus, transforming transcription into a relatively mechanical process – you write down everything you hear. Historically, this was the responsibility of the graduate student or junior researcher, almost like an induction process into the field. Although extremely tedious, the school of thought, for any in-depth qualitative research in the social sciences, was and still remains that, transcribing an interview yourself would help you understand the data better, picking up on insights and patterns..........(Unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. Peer Review Week 2019: Improving peer review quality through transparent, reproducible research
By the time a research study reaches the peer review process, many crucial decisions that affect the rigor of the study design, methodology, data collection, analysis and reporting have already been made. Nevertheless, by developing and implementing editorial policies and by providing a publishing infrastructure that supports publication of transparent reproducible research, editors, journals and publishers can help improve the published paper, adding value and quality to the peer review and publication process. In this post in the ‘of schemes and memes’ Blog, Sowmya Swaminathan, Head of Editorial Policy and Research Integrity for Nature Research, provides an overview and examples of the many initiatives undertaken at Nature Research to support publication of reproducible research.
The blog post says (quote): Data availability is another area where implementing a policy focused on transparency has had clear benefits. Since 2016, when we introduced a mandatory data availability statement on all research articles published in Nature-branded journals, we have seen a rise in data sharing through public repositories across our journals, especially in the life sciences, and increased appreciation of the value of data sharing to underscore the integrity and credibility of published work in many disciplines........(Unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
5. Quality is Multi-Dimensional: How Many Ways Can You Define Quality in Peer Review?
The theme of Peer Review Week 2019 is quality in the peer review process. There’s no question that researchers see peer review as essential. At its best it helps them ensure that their work is clear, free of errors or biases, and ready to share with the wider community. Alice Meadows and Karin Wulf kick off the fifth annual Peer Review Week with their thoughts on defining quality in peer review principles and practices. “Quality” is multi-dimensional. It can be measured in a variety of ways, and from a variety of perspectives, note Alice Meadows and Karin Wulf in this post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): It’s important that both reviewers and editors/publishers are equally committed to these principles. Reviewers who do not invest appropriate care in their reviews undermine the process. Editors who allow poor-quality reviews to be shared with the author(s) and/or to inform their decision-making are just as responsible as the “bad” reviewers themselves. Equally, authors who do not engage productively with reviews risk missing what potential for improvement even a tough review can provide. Above all, in principle and the practices they inform, mutual dedication to the mission of high quality in peer review is vital........ (Unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply