Related papers: Peer Reviewing Revisited: Assessing Research with …
Scientific publishing is the means by which we communicate and share scientific knowledge, but this process currently often lacks transparency and machine-interpretable representations. Scientific articles are published in long…
This article shows why the diffusion and peer-reviewing of research results would be more efficient, precise and relevant if all or at least some parts of the descriptions and peer-reviews of research results took the form of a fine-grained…
Peer review is a cornerstone of science. Research communities conduct peer reviews to assess contributions and to improve the overall quality of science work. Every year, new community members are recruited as peer reviewers for the first…
The importance of peer-review in the scientific process can not be overestimated. Yet, due to increasing pressures of research and exponentially growing number of publications the task faced by the referees becomes ever more difficult. We…
Peer review shapes which scientific claims enter the published record, but its internal dynamics are hard to measure at scale because reviewer criticism and author revision are usually embedded in long, unstructured correspondence. Here we…
Scientific publishing is in a transition between the old paper-bound, static forms and the new electronic media with its interactive, dynamic possibilities. This takes place in the context of imploding library budgets and exploding magazine…
The rapid development of science and technology has been accompanied by an exponential growth in peer-reviewed scientific publications. At the same time, the review of each paper is a laborious process that must be carried out by subject…
Peer review, as a cornerstone of scientific research, ensures the integrity and quality of scholarly work by providing authors with objective feedback for refinement. However, in the traditional peer review process, authors often receive…
Peer review is essential for scientific progress but faces growing challenges due to increasing submission volumes and reviewer fatigue. Existing automated review approaches struggle with factual accuracy, rating consistency, and analytical…
The number of scientific publications is constantly rising, increasing the strain on the review process. The number of submissions is actually higher, as each manuscript is often reviewed several times before publication. To face the deluge…
Linked Open Datasets about scholarly publications enable the development and integration of sophisticated end-user services; however, richer datasets are still needed. The first goal of this Challenge was to investigate novel approaches to…
Peer review is a laborious, yet essential, part of academic publishing with crucial impact on the scientific endeavor. The current lack of incentives and transparency harms the credibility of this process. Researchers are neither rewarded…
The Semantic Publishing Challenge series aims at investigating novel approaches for improving scholarly publishing using Linked Data technology. In 2014 we had bootstrapped this effort with a focus on extracting information from…
With the rapidly increasing amount of scientific literature,it is getting continuously more difficult for researchers in different disciplines to be updated with the recent findings in their field of study.Processing scientific articles in…
Scientific writing builds upon already published papers. Manual identification of publications to read, cite or consider as related papers relies on a researcher's ability to identify fitting keywords or initial papers from which a…
Scholarly journals rely on peer review to identify the science most worthy of publication. Yet finding willing and qualified reviewers to evaluate manuscripts has become an increasingly challenging task, possibly even threatening the…
Scientific evaluation is a determinant of how scientists, institutions and funders behave, and as such is a key element in the making of science. In this article, we propose an alternative to the current norm of evaluating research with…
Peer review is central to scientific publishing, yet reviewers frequently include claims that are subjective, rhetorical, or misaligned with the submitted work. Assessing whether review statements are factual and verifiable is crucial for…
Recent advancements in large language models have sparked interest in utilizing them to aid the peer review process of scientific publication amid the peer review crisis. However, having AI models generate full reviews in the same way as…
It is not easy to rationalize how peer review, as the current grassroots of science, can work based on voluntary contributions of reviewers. There is no rationale to write impartial and thorough evaluations. Consequently, there is no risk…