Academic publications edition:
Stefano Allesina in arXiv.org - Computer Science: Accelerating the pace of discovery by changing the peer review algorithm. The paper describes a radically new model for publishing academic papers:
In the alternative setting (AS, Methods), when an author produces a new manuscript, she will submit it to a first pool of manuscripts (e.g. a preprint archive). However, to be able to submit one manuscript the author must choose three manuscripts already in the pool for review. Therefore, more productive authors are also the more active reviewers. Once a manuscript in the first pool accrues three reviews, it is revised (increase in quality and novelty), and the reviewers are asked for a second evaluation. Then, the manuscript is moved to a second pool (ripe manuscripts). Every month, the editors of the journals evaluate the ripe articles. If an editor wants a manuscript for her journal, she will bid on it. At the end of the month, authors receive all the bids for their manuscripts in the second pool. In the case of more than one journal bidding on her manuscript, the author will choose that with the highest impact. If no journals bid on a manuscript, the author abandons it.
Meredith Salisbury in Genome Technology: Is peer review broken?
Franck Laloë and Remy Mosseri in Europhysics News: Bibliometric evaluation of individual researchers: not even right... not even wrong! [Link via Anant]
1 Comments:
PLoS ONE should consider the radical suggestion (the "bidding among journals" bit can be left out for now). They are already doing a couple of radical things: strongly encouraging reviewers to drop their anonymity, and asking reviewers for permission to post their reports online as publicly-viewable comments on the published articles. (Though it seems to me that the latter hasn't really caught on yet.)
Post a Comment