ACN - 101321555 Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesPeer review

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Portable Peer Review RIP – Scholarly Kitchen (Phil Davis – September 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on December 29, 2017
 

The promise of portable peer review took a fatal blow earlier this year as Rubriq, the company that began a radical experiment to disrupt the peer review process, quietly closed its service after years of unremarkable uptake.

When I last reported on Rubriq earlier this year, just 30 manuscripts were reviewed over the prior three months. According to Damian Pattinson, VP of Publishing Innovation at Research Square — the owners of Rubriq, the service has not gone away, just focused entirely on providing peer review and other editorial services to publishers.

On March 1st, Axios Review, a Vancouver-based company decided to close after lackluster uptake. Tim Vines, its founder and chief operating officer, cited several reasons for the lack Axios’s success: price sensitivity, entrenched workflows, and the culture of conducting in-house peer review.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

When Authors Get Caught in the Predatory (Illegitimate Publishing) Net – Scholarly Kitchen (December 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on December 27, 2017
 

Editor’s Note: Today’s Guest Post comes from Phaedra Cress, Executive Editor, Aesthetic Surgery Journal.

Are we losing good articles to predatory journals, with little recourse for unsuspecting authors? Or are authors becoming increasingly complicit and symbiotic in their relationships with illegitimate publishing entities with disregard for the greater good? Maybe it’s both.

This is an excellent piece on the issue, and includes some great links. It also uses the phrase ‘a fly in the chardonnay of scholars’ which we thought sums up the situation perfectly.

Predatory publishing can no longer be called an aberration or a fly in the chardonnay of scholars. In less than ten years, it has wreaked havoc on unsuspecting researchers and academics (more about how they might not be as naïve as you think, later in this article). Rick Anderson recently discussed the issues around so-called predatory publishing (here and here).

But what happens when — and what are the ethics surrounding — an author accidentally submitting to a predatory journal, realizing the error, then trying to submit to a legitimate academic journal? The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) posted advice in 2016 based on the following case:

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Federal Trade Commission and National Institutes of Health Take Action Against Predatory Publishing Practices – Scholarly Kitchen (Rick Anderson | December 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on December 25, 2017
 

In an interesting and potentially significant move for the scholarly publishing world, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada has granted a preliminary injunction against a major journal publisher and conference organizer in response to a complaint by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The injunction was granted on the basis of the Court’s analysis of evidence provided by the FTC and its finding that the FTC’s complaint, if allowed to proceed, “is likely to succeed on the merits” and that the public interest would be served by granting it.

The action by the FTC is significant because it’s a formal legal action that not only helps to shed much-needed light on a serious and growing problem in the scholarly communication ecosystem

The FTC alleges that OMICS Group and its affiliates iMedPub LLC and Conference Series Ltd have engaged in a variety of “unfair and deceptive practices with respect to the publication of online academic journals and organization of scientific conferences,” including:
.

  • Falsely claiming to provide rigorous peer review of articles submitted for publication in their journals;
  • Claiming as “editors” individuals who never received manuscripts to review or edit, or who never even agreed to be appointed as editors — some of whom say that OMICS ignored or refused their demands that they be removed from journal mastheads;
  • Sending solicitations to potential authors on behalf of other academics, without the latter’s permission or knowledge;
  • Giving their journals names “nearly identical to other respected journals, which has led to consumers mistakenly submitting articles to Defendants’ journal”;
    .

Read the rest of this news story

Journals Peer Review: Past, Present, Future – Scholarly Kitchen (Alice Meadows | September 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on December 22, 2017
 

Peer review of journals has been evolving ever since it was first introduced in the seventeenth century. Today there are a multitude of peer review processes, many different flavors of review, and a wealth of new tools and services for editors and reviewers. We asked experts from three very different organizations, each with a strong commitment to peer review, to give us their thoughts on how it’s evolved in their organizations and the communities they serve, how it works today, and what it might look like in future.

An interesting reflection on the history of peer review and where it might (perhaps should) be headed.

Rachel Burley is Publishing Director of BioMed Central (BMC), an early and highly successful adopter of open access journals with a strong tradition of experimentation in its publishing program. Seth Denbo is Director of Scholarly Communication and Digital Initiatives at the American Historical Association, the largest professional organization serving historians. Phil Hurst and Stuart Taylor are, respectively Publisher and Publishing Director at The Royal Society, the world’s oldest learned society and publisher of the world’s first scholarly journal, Philosophical Transactions, which celebrated its 350th birthday in 2015.
.

How did peer review evolve in your organization/community?
.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

0