Skip to content

ACN - 101321555 | ABN - 39101321555

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

AHRECS icon
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Menu
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Exclude terms...
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
AHRECS
Analysis
Animal ethics
Animal Ethics Committee
Animal handling
Animal housing
Animal Research Ethics
Animal Welfare
ANZCCART
Artificial Intelligence
Arts
Australia
Authorship
Belief
Beneficence
Big data
Big data
Biobank
Bioethics
Biomedical
Biospecimens
Breaches
Cartoon/Funny
Case studies
Clinical trial
Collaborative research
Conflicts of interest
Consent
Controversy/Scandal
Controversy/Scandal
Creative
Culture
Data management
Database
Dual-use
Essential Reading
Ethical review
Ethnography
Euthanasia
Evaluative practice/quality assurance
First People
Fraud
Gender
Genetics
Good practice
Guidance
Honesty
HREC
Human research ethics
Humanities
Institutional responsibilities
International
Journal
Justice
Links
Media
Medical research
Merit and integrity
Methodology
Monitoring
New Zealand
News
Online research
Peer review
Performance
Primary materials
Principles
Privacy
Protection for participants
Psychology
Publication ethics
Questionable Publishers
Research ethics committees
Research integrity
Research Misconduct
Research results
Researcher responsibilities
Resources
Respect for persons
Sample paperwork
sd
Serious Adverse Event
Social Science
SoTL
Standards
Supervision
Training
Vulnerability
x
Young people
Exclude news

Sort by

Animal Ethics Biosafety Human Research Ethics Research Integrity

Reading Peer Review – What a dataset of peer review reports can teach us about changing research culture – LSE Impact Blog (Martin Eve, et al | March 2021)

Posted by Dr Gary Allen in on May 18, 2021

The Linked Original Item was Posted On March 31, 2021

A coloured Wordcloud around the concept of "Peer Review"

One of the first megajournals, PLOS ONE, has played a significant role in changing scholarly communication and in particular peer review, by placing an emphasis on soundness, as opposed to novelty, in published research. Drawing on a study of peer review reports from PLOS ONE recently published as an open-access book, Martin Paul Eve, Daniel Paul O’Donnell, Cameron Neylon, Sam Moore, Robert Gadie, Victoria Odeniyi, and Shahina Parvin¸ assess PLOS ONE’s impact on the culture of peer review and what it can tell us about efforts to change academic culture more broadly.

Most scholars are familiar with peer review; the sometimes brutal system by which academic work is judged. The COVID-19 pandemic has even mainstreamed this process, with media outlets commenting on unreviewed preprints with warnings that work has “not yet undergone peer review”. Yet few venues, over the past two decades, have done more to challenge the way that peer review works than the Public Library of Science’s PLOS ONE title.

This interesting piece published by the London School of Economics Impact Blog reflects on an analysis of the form of peer review reports at PLOS One.  A great insight into their analysis.

PLOS ONE initiated a revolution in peer-review that was predicated on the principle of ‘technical soundness’. The idea being that papers are judged according to whether or not their methods and procedures are thought to be solid, rather than whether their contents are judged to be important. A fairly radical idea from its inception, PLOS ONE was designed to foster Kuhnian “normal science”, rather than shooting for high-profile ‘discoveries’. Detractors worried PLOS ONE’s review process would let through a raft of useless, insignificant (non-)results. Proponents believed it could usher in an era of better science.

As this change represented a fundamental shift in a core research practice, we wanted to understand how peer reviewers behave at PLOS ONE, and were generously given access to an anonymised set of peer review reports from the journal. What did we find? In purely quantitative terms, the mean length of reviews was 3,081 characters, while the longest report we found was just under 14,000 words(!)

Reading Peer Review – What a dataset of peer review reports can teach us about changing research culture
One of the first megajournals, PLOS ONE, has played a significant role in changing scholarly communication and in particular peer review, by placing an emphasis on soundness, as opposed to novelty,…

Related Reading

Against Research Waste – How the Evidence-Based Research paradigm promotes more ethical and innovative research – London School of Economics (Caroline Blaine, et al | February 2021)

Citing Software in Scholarly Publishing to Improve Reproducibility, Reuse, and Credit – Scholarly Kitchen ( Daniel S. Katz & Hollydawn Murray | January 2021)

Preprints Involving Medical Research—Do the Benefits Outweigh the Challenges? (Papers (Editorial): Annette Flanagin, et al | November 2020)

Five better ways to assess science – Nature Index (Benjamin Plackett | August 2020)

The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity (Papers: David Moher, et al | July 2020)

Celebrating 6 Months of Published Peer Review at PLOS – PLOS Blog (December 2019)

Strong caveats are lacking as news stories trumpet preliminary COVID-19 research – HealthNewsReview (Mary Chris Jaklevic | April 2020)

5 Things We Learned About Peer Review in 2019 – PLOS Blog (Hilda Bastian | December 2019)

How Universities Cover Up Scientific Fraud – Areo (Justin T Pickett | February 2020)

Guest Post: Interesting Versus True? Measuring Transparency and Reproducibility of Biomedical Articles – Scholarly Kitchen (Anita Bandrowski and Martijn Roelandse | December 2019)

‘Science by tweet’ prompts expression of concern, irking authors – Retraction Watch (Adam Marcus | October 2019)

Citation Contamination: References to Predatory Journals in the Legitimate Scientific Literature – Scholarly Kitchen (Rick Anderson | October 2019)

We Need to Talk About Authorship Abuse – Inside Higher Ed (A. Susan Jurow and Jordan Jurow | September 2019)

An idea to promote research integrity: adding badges to papers where the authors fought against the results being suppressed or sanitised – LSE Impact Blog (Adrian Barnett | July 2018)

Oh, What A Tangled Web! Citation Network Underscores Editorial Conflicts of Interest – Scholarly Kitchen (Phil Davis | December 2018)

A paper showing how to make a smallpox cousin just got published. Critics wonder why – Science (Kai Kupferschmidt | January 2018)

‘Fraud and Misconduct in Research’ – Inside Higher Ed (Nick Roll | December 2017)

How to critically evaluate a manuscript: 12 questions you should always ask yourself – Publons (Tom Culley | April 2017)

Five reasons blog posts are of higher scientific quality than journal articles – The 20% Statistician (Daniel Lakens | April 2017)

What Constitutes Peer Review of Data? A Survey of Peer Review Guidelines – Scholarly Kitchen (Todd A Carpenter | April 2017)

Why do researchers commit misconduct? A new preprint offers some clues – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | April 2017)

Meta-research: Evaluation and Improvement of Research Methods and Practices (Papers: John P. A. Ioannidis, et al | 2015)

“Failure is an essential part of science:” A Q&A with the author of a new book on reproducibility – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | April 2017)

How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data (Papers: Daniele Fanelli | 2009)

Why Growing Retractions Are (Mostly) a Good Sign (Papers: Daniele Fanelli | 2013)

Secure communications and the Wikileaks dump of CIA information about digital espionage: What it means for researchers

Why research integrity isn’t just “somebody else’s problem” – LSTM Seminar Series (Webinar: Elizabeth Wager | October 2016)

Silence: Everyday Betrayals of Research Participants – PLOS Blogs (Hilda Bastian | December 2016)

The Fallacy of ‘Sound’ Science – The Scholarly Kitchen (Phil Davis | October 2016)

The grey zone: How questionable research practices are blurring the boundary between science and misconduct – Times Higher Education (Nick Butler: October 2016 )

Does Productivity Diminish Research Quality? – The Scientist (Anna Azvolinsky: September 2016)

Open access ‘boosts citations by a fifth’ – Times Higher Education (David Matthews September 2016)

Advice to Junior Academics on How to Get Involved With Twitter Plos Blogs (Papers: Coyne J 2013 )

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Links

Complaints against Research Ethics Monthly

Request a Takedown

Submission Guidelines

About the Research Ethics Monthly

About subscribing to the Research Ethics Monthly

A diverse group discussing a topic

Random selected image from the AHRECS library. These were all purchased from iStockPhoto. These are images we use in our workshops and Dr Allen used in the GUREM.

Research Ethics Monthly Receive copies of the Research Ethics Monthly directly
by email. We will never spam you.

  • Enter the answer as a word
  • Hidden
    This field is hidden and only used for import to Mailchimp
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Menu
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
Menu
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map
Menu
  • Site Map

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in