Related papers: PRINCIPIA: a Decentralized Peer-Review Ecosystem
Approaches to scientific journal publishing that provide free access to all readers are challenging the standard subscription-based model. But in domains that have a well-functioning system of publicly accessible preprint repositories like…
The FAIR Principles are a set of good practices to improve the reproducibility and quality of data in an Open Science context. Different sets of indicators have been proposed to evaluate the FAIRness of digital objects, including datasets…
Peer review is a widely accepted mechanism for research evaluation, playing a pivotal role in academic publishing. However, criticisms have long been leveled at this mechanism, mostly because of its poor efficiency and low reproducibility.…
Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) systems, including large language models like ChatGPT, offer promise and peril for scholarly peer review. On the one hand, AI can enhance efficiency by addressing issues like long…
This paper reconceptualises peer review as structured public commentary. Traditional academic validation is hindered by anonymity, latency, and gatekeeping. We propose a transparent, identity-linked, and reproducible system of scholarly…
The number of citations is a widely used metric to evaluate the scientific credit of papers, scientists and journals. However, it does happen that a paper with fewer citations from prestigious scientists is of higher influence than papers…
The number of scientific articles produced every year is growing rapidly. Providing quality control over them is crucial for scientists and, ultimately, for the public good. In modern science, this process is largely delegated to peer…
We propose a tool for experts finding applied to academic data generated by the start-up DSRT in the context of its application Peerus. A user may submit the title, the abstract and optionnally the authors and the journal of publication of…
Authorship of scientific articles has profoundly changed from early science until now. While once upon a time a paper was authored by a handful of authors, scientific collaborations are much more prominent on average nowadays. As authorship…
Peer reviews, evaluations, and selections are a fundamental aspect of modern science. Funding bodies the world over employ experts to review and select the best proposals from those submitted for funding. The problem of peer selection,…
We present PeerQA, a real-world, scientific, document-level Question Answering (QA) dataset. PeerQA questions have been sourced from peer reviews, which contain questions that reviewers raised while thoroughly examining the scientific…
Peer review is the primary mechanism for evaluating scientific contributions, yet prior studies have mostly examined paper features or external metadata in isolation. The emergence of open platforms such as OpenReview has transformed peer…
While ancient scientists often had patrons to fund their work, peer review of proposals for the allocation of resources is a foundation of modern science. A very common method is that proposals are evaluated by a small panel of experts (due…
The National Science Foundation (NSF) will be experimenting with a new distributed approach to reviewing proposals, whereby a group of principal investigators (PIs) or proposers in a subfield act as reviewers for the proposals submitted by…
Peer review is the backbone of modern science. F1000Prime is a post-publication peer review system of the biomedical literature (papers from medical and biological journals). This study is concerned with the inter-rater reliability and…
The peer review system as used in several computer science communities has several flaws including long review times, overloaded reviewers, as well as fostering of niche topics. These flaws decrease quality, lower impact, slowdown the…
Competitive grant funding is associated with high costs and a potential bias to favor conservative research. This comment proposes integrating editorial preregistration, in the form of registered reports, into grant peer review processes as…
Overlay journals are characterised by their articles being published on open access repositories, often already starting in their initial preprint form as a prerequisite for submission to the journal prior to initiating the peer-review…
Top-tier academic conferences are failing under the strain of two irreconcilable roles: (1) rapid dissemination of all sound research and (2) scarce credentialing for prestige and career advancement. This conflict has created a reviewer…
Personal connections between creators and evaluators of scientific works are ubiquitous, and the possibility of bias ever-present. Although connections have been shown to bias prospective judgments of (uncertain) future performance, it is…