Ideas for a Extending Open Review to the Use of Scientific Literature in News Media | Generation Research

“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….”

The Enlightenment of Peer Review | Emerging Library & Information Perspectives

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.

 

The Enlightenment of Peer Review | Emerging Library & Information Perspectives

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.

 

Determining the informativeness of comments: a natural language study of F1000Research open peer review reports | Emerald Insight

Abstract:  Purpose

Social comments are rich in information and useful in evaluating, ranking or retrieving different kinds of materials. However, their merits in representing or providing added values to scientific articles have not yet been studied. Therefore, the present study investigates the informativeness of open review reports as a kind of social comments in a scholarly setting.

Design/methodology/approach

A test collection was built consisting of 100 randomly selected queries, 1,962 reviewed documents and their reviewers’ open reports from F1000Research. They were analyzed using natural language techniques. The comments’ salient words were compared to the documents’ and also to the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) salient words. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to test the accuracy of the comments in representing their related articles.

Findings

The papers’ contents and comments have a considerable number of salient words in common. The comments’ salient words are also largely found in the MeSH, signifying their consistency with the knowledge tree and their potential to add some complementary features to their related items. The ROC curves confirm the accuracy of the comments in retrieving their related papers.

Originality/value

This research is the first to reveal the merits of open review reports on scientific papers, in terms of their relatedness to their mother articles, in specific, and to the knowledge tree, in general. They are found informative in not only representing the reviewed papers but also in adding values to the contents of the papers.

Open Peer Review: Part 2.2 Open Data

“The lead editorial team for Scholarly Communication Librarianship and Open Culture: Law, Economics, and Publishing (ACRL, forthcoming 2021) is happy to launch the open peer review process for Parts 1 and 2 of the book with the Open Data section, edited by Brianna Marshall. We’re rolling these sections out as they’re ready rather than sequentially, so reviewers will benefit from taking a look at information about Part 1 and other sections of Part 2 to understand how this section relates to the others, and the whole. As with all the Part 2 section editors, Brianna has assembled a stellar group of contributors, and we’re deeply grateful to all of them for sharing their knowledge and time to help the book be the best resource it can be. Now you have the opportunity to contribute to that goal by providing feedback on their draft. Brianna introduces the section and guiding questions below, along with links to the drafts and info for reviewers. The big guidance we want to reinforce is to be the reviewer you wish you had by providing thoughtful critical feedback without berating or belittling. -Josh, Maria, and Will …”

Guest Post –  On Clarifying the Goals of a Peer Review Taxonomy – The Scholarly Kitchen

“During a period of reevaluation and change, the description of peer review processes should include both existing and emerging models. Designing or reforming a peer review process involves managing multiple goals such as timeliness, effort, equity and inclusion to achieve increased reliability in assessments of novelty, importance of results, rigor and other factors for targeted components of the scientific process. There is no ideal form of peer review in the abstract — whether particular tradeoffs are justified depends on the broader context in which that review is carried out. The proposed taxonomy focuses on the most established forms, which may reinforce barriers to innovation and create blind spots for policy-makers and researchers.

In order to meet today’s pressing need for timely policy decisions that are informed by scientific communication, what a particular system of peer review promises, how it is designed, and how it operates must be understandable and trustworthy. This requires clearly describing the scope of the vetting process; the range of content to which the process is applied; what reviewers and authors are permitted to know about each other and how they are allowed to communicate; how acceptance decision are made; how reviewers are selected; and basic statistics about submissions, acceptance, desk rejections, and review dispositions. And, it requires making this information transparently available in a FAIR way.”

News & Views: Preprints and COVID-19: Findings from our PRW Survey – Delta Think

“In anticipation of Peer Review Week 2020, and in consideration of the theme ‘Trust in Peer Review’, Delta Think surveyed broadly across a two-week period in August to determine whether COVID-19 has impacted perceptions of preprints. The survey was open to everyone – from Publishers to Librarians to Researchers to the Lay Public with an interest in scientific output.

We entered into the survey with open minds, though a few recurring themes circulating in news outlets were on our minds including: the idea that both traditional journal submissions and articles posted to preprint servers have spiked in the last six months, owing to COVID-19; and the hunch that perhaps increased traffic indicated a correlated spike in trust, or conversely, that challenged findings making their way into mainstream news might have reduced trust. Was the reputation associated with preprints in jeopardy? Or could they play a critical role in speeding up science at a time so critical for the global health community? With these early loose hypotheses and questions, we launched the survey.

We explore the survey results below. In the spirit of transparency, we will make the data collected available within the next few weeks. It’s also important to note that while this was a quick survey, and is not meant to include a representative sample from the participating audiences, it provides interesting top-level findings and points to areas that may be ripe for a further investigation or a deeper dive in future….”

Viral Science: Masks, Speed Bumps, and Guard Rails: Patterns

“With the world fixated on COVID-19, the WHO has warned that the pandemic response has also been accompanied by an infodemic: overabundance of information, ranging from demonstrably false to accurate. Alas, the infodemic phenomenon has extended to articles in scientific journals, including prestigious medical outlets such as The Lancet and NEJM. The rapid reviews and publication speed for COVID-19 papers has surprised many, including practicing physicians, for whom the guidance is intended….

The Allen Institute for AI (AI2) and Semantic Scholar launched the COVID-19 Open Research Dataset (CORD-19), a growing corpus of papers (currently 130,000 abstracts plus full-text papers being used by multiple research groups) that are related to past and present coronaviruses.

Using this data, AI2, working with the University of Washington, released a tool called SciSight, an AI-powered graph visualization tool enabling quick and intuitive exploration
6

 of associations between biomedical entities such as proteins, genes, cells, drugs, diseases, and patient characteristics as well as between different research groups working in the field. It helps foster collaborations and discovery as well as reduce redundancy….

The research community and scientific publishers working together need to develop and make accessible open-source software tools to permit the dual-track submission discussed above. Repositories such as Github are a start….”

Open and Reproducible Research Group (ORRG)

“Open Science is better science. Research benefits from sharing data and scientific knowledge which is publicly available, making open science essential. The Open and Reproducible Research Group (ORRG) uses evidence-based and computational approaches to make research cultures more open, transparent and participatory through new practices and technologies. In our interdisciplinary team we combine competences in philosophy, sociology, and information science with computer science and life science. We research services, policies, and tools to investigate and foster the uptake and evaluation of Open Science practices in the following areas: …”