“The academic community has responded swiftly to the novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Anecdotally, academic researchers have noticed a reduction in the amount of time journals require to review COVID-19 manuscripts. In this letter we describe the growth of this literature and the review time of COVID-19–related manuscripts….”
“The European Commission’s scientific publishing service has launched a new venue for EU research grantees to publish free-to-read results.
The Open Research Europe platform promises beneficiaries an “easy, high quality peer-reviewed” system at “no cost to them”.
The twist: authors, not editors, choose what they wish to publish – without the delay involved in traditional science publishing, the commission says.
The platform, set up to speed the flow of scientific information generated from its seven-year, €85 billion Horizon Europe programme, will post original publications in all fields of science in advance of peer review. Only after the articles are on the platform will the “transparent, invited and open peer review” begin. The names of the reviewers will be open, as well as their reviews.
The London-based open science publisher F1000 Research will run the system, with the commission picking up the tab for article processing charges.
With this model, the commission is playing catch up with some early-adopters. In 2016, Wellcome Trust, the largest charitable funder of biomedical research in Europe, contracted F1000Research to manage its open access publishing platform, Wellcome Open Research. Since then, many other major funders and institutions, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, have contracted F1000 to set up similar platforms.
In a letter last week to Horizon grantees, the commission’s research and innovation director-general Jean-Eric Paquet says, “Your involvement is key to making this initiative a success.” The formal launch of the platform will be early 2021, but submissions will start in a few weeks, the commission said.
Reaction to the new site is mixed, with some researchers highlighting the flaws of the open review method….”
“UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) has developed a new feature in its current funding systems to recognise formally the contributions of UKRI reviewers via ORCID, a unique identifier tool for individuals.
The implementation of ORCID reviewer recognition went live today (23 November 2020). It will enable UKRI review contributions to be publicly displayed without compromising the anonymity and confidentiality of the assessment process. This will be done by issuing a ‘review credit’ that will be displayed in individual reviewers ORCID profiles….”
“As of this week, roughly 10,000 preprints about the novel coronavirus were available on the preprint servers bioRxiv and medRxiv alone, a remarkable feat given that this virus has existed for less than a year. Collectively, these preprints have put vital research information into circulation much faster than would have been possible under the traditional academic publishing model, in which emerging knowledge is sequestered until it clears peer review. Although peer review has long been held up as the gold standard of academic publication, the flowering of preprints during the pandemic gives the lie to the fiction that pre-publication peer review is essential to ensuring scholarly rigor. In a fast-moving era of digital information, preprints should become the new normal….
Moreover, the pandemic has inspired the emergence of several third-party services that review or curate published preprints. PreLights, a preprint review site supported by the not-for-profit publisher The Company of Biologists, maintains a running timeline of what they deem to be “landmark” preprints about the biology and transmission of the novel coronavirus. Each entry gives a brief description of why the preprint is important, along with a direct link to the paper. As of this writing, they have highlighted approximately 125 preprints, providing a useful filtration system for the thousands of preprints that have been published about the coronavirus….”
“Over the last 6 months we have been busy building the platform which will welcome submissions from Horizon 2020 grantees in all disciplines, during and after the end of Horizon 2020 grants. The European Commission will be covering the APCs and so it will be completely cost-free for you to publish your research on the platform.
ORE is on track for its official launch in March 2021 with peer-reviewed publications in all scientific fields. From now until then, there will be more frequent announcements from us about the platform, starting with:…
We are actively seeking submissions ahead of the formal launch in early 2021. These submissions will be published as preprints and will have been peer-reviewed by the time the platform launches. They will thus be part of the group of the first Horizon 2020 peer-reviewed publications to appear in Open Research Europe. If you are an Horizon 2020 grant recipient, please extend this message to all researchers who are contributing to your Horizon 2020 project. The submission system for the platform will open at the end of November 2020. …”
“We are looking for professionals working in LIBER libraries who have expertise in areas including peer review, publishing and editorial units or in helping to run advanced repositories. Library staff working on Open Science software, or those responsible for the advancement of Open Science in their institutions, are also welcome….”
“The authors of the following preprint ‘Open Science Saves Lives’ will hold a ‘Ask me anything’ #AMA session on Reddit next week – 08:00 am Eastern Time (GMT-4:00) on the 11th November.
Open pad for asking questions on the topic of extending review to news media to help use of science in news.
The paper raises the question that preprints are misused by the news media. In response to this question this document is to collect questions around the idea of extending open peer review to the use of science in news media in general….”
Abstract: In today’s world of digital scholarly publishing, it is increasingly clear that movements such as open access (OA), Open Science, and open peer review (OPR) are increasingly impactful and gaining momentum. The shift towards openness in the academy reveals a transformation of traditional structures that compose scholarly communication as well as changing attitudes about the nature of authority and access within these systems. These new directions in the scholarly information landscape have created a need for academic librarians to realign roles and respond in ways that build resiliency in an era of rapid change. Recognizing that many core elements of scholarly communication are powerful tools for teaching students about information literacy can lead to transformative instructional strategies. This paper explores how academic librarians can leverage the innovative traits of OPR to advance information literacy through experiential student learning opportunities grounded in the ACRL (2016) Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education.