Peer Review 2.0 (2.0) – Ontario Library Association Superconference

Peer Review 2.0: Tomorrow’s Scholarship for Today’s Students

Kate Gronemyer & Anne-Marie Deitering

Ontario Library Association Super Conference

January 30, 2009. Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

What is 2.0?
Five Web 2.0 themes — from the ACRL Instruction Section’s Current Issues Discussion Forum, Research Instruction in a Web 2.0 World (Annual, 2006).

We need to deal with the strengths and weaknesses of peer review

Like this story about a pharmaceutical company that paid ghostwriters to write up research articles and recruited doctors to sign on as authors so they would be published.

Jabberwiki: The Educational Response, Part II (Michael Gorman, Britannica Blog, 6/26/2007)

Peer-to-Peer – a nature.com blog “for peer-reviewers and about the peer-review process.”

Uses of Journals in Scholarly Communities

Ann C. Schaffner (December 1994). “The Future of Scientific Journals:  Lessons from the Past.” Information Technology and Libraries, 13(4), pp. 239-247.

Creating an archive of knowledge

PhD comics – Your (real) Impact Factor (12/8/2008)

Citation Systems for New Media (MediaCommons, June 19, 2008) – the issue of measuring impact factor in digital scholarship

Thomas Kuhn (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Kuhn, 1962)

Coping with Peer Rejection (Nature 425, 645. 16 October 2003)

Building a community of scholars

Academia.edu

Twitter for Academia (AcademHack, January 23,  2008)  — see “track a conference”

#hashtags

• #alamw09 (ALA Midwinter 2009)
• #AHA (American Historical Association)
• #eli09 (EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative)
• #sparc08 (SPARC Digital Repositories Meeting 2008)
• #mla08, #mla140 (Modern Language Association 2008)

MLA Goes Tweet (Scott McLemee, Inside Higher Ed, (12/29/08)

Guaranteeing quality control

In the Matter of J Hendrik Schon (physicsworld.com, 11/01/02)

Report of the Investigation Committee on the Possibility of Scientific Misconduct in the case of Henrik Schon and Coauthors (PDF)

Retraction (Letters, Science, 11/01/02)

Fiona Godlee, Catharine Gale & Christopher Martyn (1998), “Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports,” JAMA,  280, 237-240.  (Link to abstract)

The Purpose of Peer Review (Dorothea Salo, Caveat Lector, 9/3/2006)

Distributing rewards

A few examples of faculty & researchers writing about their experiences with the process:

What Professors Want from Editors and Peer Reviewers (Inside Higher Ed, October 2, 2008).

Peer Review or Smear Review? Reflections on a Rigged System (Historiann, May 2, 2008).

Rescind to Sender (FemaleScienceProfessor, July 1, 2008)

So, what happens if we ignore all this?

Peer Review Education Resource, from Sense About Science. This is a British project designed to help teachers teach students about peer review.

Open Peer Review (which is not the same as open access)

A great discussion of open peer review and a summary of different models for it can be found here –

Mind the Gap: Peer Review Opens Up (Sara Kearns, Talking in the Library, June 24, 2008).

Nature experiments with open peer review – Nature Peer Review Trial and Debate (December 2006).

Models:

Current Anthropology

The EMBO Journal

BMJ – be sure to read all the Rapid Responses

Connexions lenses – educational materials, not research, but an interesting model.

Expressive Processing, an experiment in blog-based peer review

Nature Precedings
CiteULike

ResearchBlogging

ScienceBlogs

Cognitive Daily

Classic Science Papers: The 2008 “Challenge” ! (Skulls in the Stars, May 2008). Science bloggers analyze and explain the significance of key papers in their fields in a way accessible to non-scientists.

Open Notebook Science Using Blogs and Wikis (Jean-Claude Bradley). Preprint at Nature Precedings.