doi: 10.3389/fncom.2011.00056. eCollection 2011.
Alternatives to peer review: novel approaches for research evaluation
Affiliations
- PMID:22174702
- PMCID: PMC3237011
- DOI: 10.3389/fncom.2011.00056
Item in Clipboard
Alternatives to peer review: novel approaches for research evaluation
Aliaksandr Birukou et al. Front Comput Neurosci..
Display options
Format
Display options
Format
Abstract
In this paper we review several novel approaches for research evaluation. We start with a brief overview of the peer review, its controversies, and metrics for assessing efficiency and overall quality of the peer review. We then discuss five approaches, including reputation-based ones, that come out of the research carried out by the LiquidPub project and research groups collaborated with LiquidPub. Those approaches are alternative or complementary to traditional peer review. We discuss pros and cons of the proposed approaches and conclude with a vision for the future of the research evaluation, arguing that no single system can suit all stakeholders in various communities.
Keywords: LiquidPub; UCount; bidding; metrics; opinions; peer review; research evaluation.
Figures
A sample structural graph in the publications field.
The 8-point Review Quality Instrument (RQI) developed by van Rooyen et al. (1999). The total score is calculated as the mean of the first 7 items, while the 8th “global item” provides an extra validation check.
Similar articles
- Reputation or peer review? The role of outliers.Grimaldo F, Paolucci M, Sabater-Mir J.Grimaldo F, et al.Scientometrics. 2018;116(3):1421-1438. doi: 10.1007/s11192-018-2826-3. Epub 2018 Jul 9.Scientometrics. 2018.PMID:30147204Free PMC article.
- Measuring the impact of pharmacoepidemiologic research using altmetrics: A case study of a CNODES drug-safety article.Gamble JM, Traynor RL, Gruzd A, Mai P, Dormuth CR, Sketris IS.Gamble JM, et al.Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2020 Jan;29 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):93-102. doi: 10.1002/pds.4401. Epub 2018 Mar 24.Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2020.PMID:29575351Free PMC article.Review.
- The association between four citation metrics and peer rankings of research influence of Australian researchers in six fields of public health.Derrick GE, Haynes A, Chapman S, Hall WD.Derrick GE, et al.PLoS One. 2011 Apr 6;6(4):e18521. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018521.PLoS One. 2011.PMID:21494691Free PMC article.
- New developments in the use of citation analysis in research evaluation.Moed HF.Moed HF.Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz). 2009 Jan-Feb;57(1):13-8. doi: 10.1007/s00005-009-0001-5. Epub 2009 Feb 14.Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz). 2009.PMID:19219533Review.
- ChatGPT identifies gender disparities in scientific peer review.Verharen JPH.Verharen JPH.Elife. 2023 Nov 3;12:RP90230. doi: 10.7554/eLife.90230.Elife. 2023.PMID:37922198Free PMC article.
Cited by
- Menage a quoi? Optimal number of peer reviewers.Snell RR.Snell RR.PLoS One. 2015 Apr 1;10(4):e0120838. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120838. eCollection 2015.PLoS One. 2015.PMID:25830238Free PMC article.
- Open peer review by a selected-papers network.Lee C.Lee C.Front Comput Neurosci. 2012 Jan 24;6:1. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00001. eCollection 2012.Front Comput Neurosci. 2012.PMID:22291635Free PMC article.
- Improving the peer-review process from the perspective of an author and reviewer.Faggion CM Jr.Faggion CM Jr.Br Dent J. 2016 Feb 26;220(4):167-8. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2016.131.Br Dent J. 2016.PMID:26917302
- The evaluation of research papers in the XXI century. The Open Peer Discussion system of the World Economics Association.Ietto-Gillies G.Ietto-Gillies G.Front Comput Neurosci. 2012 Aug 7;6:54. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00054. eCollection 2012.Front Comput Neurosci. 2012.PMID:22891057Free PMC article.
- Theoretical research without projects.Navascués M, Budroni C.Navascués M, et al.PLoS One. 2019 Mar 28;14(3):e0214026. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214026. eCollection 2019.PLoS One. 2019.PMID:30921374Free PMC article.
References
- Adomavicius G., Tuzhilin A. (2005). Toward the next generation of recommender systems: a survey of the state-of-the-art and possible extensions. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 17, 734–74910.1109/TKDE.2005.99 - DOI
- Akst J. (2010). I hate your paper. Scientist 24, 36
- Best M. L. (2004). Can the internet be a human right? Hum. Rights Hum. Welf. 4, 23–31
- Bornmann L. (2007). Bias cut. women, it seems, often get a raw deal in science – so how can discrimination be tackled? Nature 445, 566.10.1038/nj7127-566a - DOI
Related information
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous