Higher Education and academic research
15.4K views | +0 today
Follow
Higher Education and academic research
Higher education and academic/non-profit research in the world
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by Collectif PAPERA
Scoop.it!

Journal that holds record for retracted papers also has a problem with editorial board members

Journal that holds record for retracted papers also has a problem with editorial board members | Higher Education and academic research | Scoop.it

A half-dozen scientists listed at Tumor Biology’s website have no relationship with the journal


Almost every scientific journal has to retract a paper once in a while. But at Tumor Biology, when it rains, it pours. Last month, its former publisher, Springer, announced that the journal was retracting 107 papers all at once, after finding that the peer-review process had been compromised. It was the third mass retraction at Tumor Biology, which now holds the unenviable world record for most retracted papers, according to Retraction Watch.(...) - Science, by Hinnerk Feldwisch-Drentrup, 18 May 2017

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Collectif PAPERA
Scoop.it!

Why peer review needs a good going over

Why peer review needs a good going over | Higher Education and academic research | Scoop.it

The process is a vital to academia but many are unhappy with how it works. New research sets out to explore where peer review falls short of expectations (...) - The Guardian, by Elaine Devine, 28 October 2015

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Collectif PAPERA
Scoop.it!

‘Overflow’ of new research ‘erodes trust between scientists’

‘Overflow’ of new research ‘erodes trust between scientists’ | Higher Education and academic research | Scoop.it

Peer review system ‘lacks capacity’ to deal with ‘flood’ of new papers, meaning some could be unjustly dismissed (...) - Times Higher Education, by David Matthews, September 24, 2015

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Collectif PAPERA
Scoop.it!

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

Reviewer anonymity: a hindrance to self-correction in science? | Higher Education and academic research | Scoop.it

Reproducibility and replicability: two means to reach a better oppennes of scientific data.

 

Pre-publication registration, post-publication peer-review, greater data openness; all these factors form a long list of potential solutions heralded as capable of improving study reproducibility and replicability in science. Though not everyone agrees, the world of scholarly publishing is in full debate mode. For example, intense discussions took place at the recent Royal Society meeting in the UK on the future of scientific scholarly publishing. A second meeting scheduled in Mayon the same theme will tackle reproducibility as one of its key focus points. (...) - EuroScientist Webzine, par Sabine Louët, 29 April 2015

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Collectif PAPERA from Digital tools for researchers
Scoop.it!

A look at Pubmed's new commenting platform

A look at Pubmed's new commenting platform | Higher Education and academic research | Scoop.it

Pubmed is implementing a new function that enables researchers to share their thoughts about scientific publications. By allowing readers to comment and debate about specific papers publicly,  PubMed Commons is trying to extend the peer-review of manuscripts after their publication. If successful, PubMed Commons will become a platform for scientific discussions that could foster constructive criticism and eventually improve published papers and science. (...) - Connected Researchers, November 4, 2013


Via Tree of Science
more...
Tree of Science's curator insight, April 16, 2014 2:05 PM

By implementing public comments as a post-publication peer-review, PubMed is providing to readers a way to share their comments about publications

Scooped by Collectif PAPERA
Scoop.it!

Commerce nominee Ross promises to protect "peer-reviewed research" at NOAA

Commerce nominee Ross promises to protect "peer-reviewed research" at NOAA | Higher Education and academic research | Scoop.it

Pledge comes as Trump administration imposes control at other research agencies (...) - Science, by Paul Voosen, Jan 24, 2017

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Collectif PAPERA
Scoop.it!

Peer review, coaching en ligne, bilan des Mooc : l’innovation made in USA

Peer review, coaching en ligne, bilan des Mooc : l’innovation made in USA | Higher Education and academic research | Scoop.it

REVUE DE PRESSE - ÉTATS-UNIS. Academia veut construire son système d’évaluation par les pairs, LearnUp lève huit millions de dollars, et les résultats d’une étude sur les élèves ayant suivi un Mooc. (...) - EducPros, par Jessica Gourdon, 01/10/2015

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Collectif PAPERA
Scoop.it!

Scientist registry unveils plan to recognize efforts of peer-reviewers

Movement to publicly record peer-reviewing activity gains momentum.

 

A service developed to track the work of researchers will soon be extended to include records of peer review.

More than 1.2 million people have signed up to use ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID), a registry or 'science passport' that allocates users a unique 16-digit identifier and webpage that they can use to record their publications and grants. And on 18 May, ORCID announced that users would soon be able to record on their profile the many different types of peer review they do. ORCID's executive director, Laure Haak, hopes that the initiative will give researchers greater incentive to take part in the peer-review process. (...) - Nature, by Dalmeet Singh Chawla, 22 May 2015

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Collectif PAPERA
Scoop.it!

Nature to let potential authors try a double-blind date

Nature to let potential authors try a double-blind date | Higher Education and academic research | Scoop.it

Submitters will be able to opt for totally anonymous peer review.

 

The marquee research journal Nature and almost all of its sister publications this week announced that they will offer authors the option of participating in double-blind peer review, where both submitters and referees remain anonymous. The practice, which is common among humanities journals, has long been debated in the sciences, and several journals have recently taken the plunge. Some observers, however, remain skeptical of the value of double-blind systems and note that other journals are heading toward greater transparency. (...) - Nature, by Dalmeet Singh Chawla, 20 February 2015

more...
No comment yet.