Related papers: On Novel Peer Review System for Academic Journals:…
The accelerating pace of scientific publication makes it difficult to identify truly original research among incremental work. We propose a framework for estimating the conceptual novelty of research papers by combining semantic…
Recent studies have shown that the majority of published computational models in systems biology and physiology are not repeatable or reproducible. There are a variety of reasons for this. One of the most likely reasons is that given how…
Assigning qualified, unbiased and interested reviewers to paper submissions is vital for maintaining the integrity and quality of the academic publishing system and providing valuable reviews to authors. However, matching thousands of…
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…
One of the virtues of peer review is that it provides a self-regulating selection mechanism for scientific work, papers and projects. Peer review as a selection mechanism is hard to evaluate in terms of its efficiency. Serious efforts to…
Novelty is a crucial criterion in the peer review process for evaluating academic papers. Traditionally, it's judged by experts or measure by unique reference combinations. Both methods have limitations: experts have limited knowledge, and…
Peer reviewed publications are considered the gold standard in certifying and disseminating ideas that a research community considers valuable. However, we identify two major drawbacks of the current system: (1) the overwhelming demand for…
This paper presents a novel model for author-paper networks, which is based on the assumption that authors are organized into groups and that, for each research topic, the number of papers published by a group is based on a…
Review articles summarize state-of-the-art work and provide a means to organize the growing number of scholarly publications. However, the current review method and publication mechanisms hinder the impact review articles can potentially…
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…
Novelty, akin to gene mutation in evolution, opens possibilities for scholarly advancement. Although peer review remains the gold standard for evaluating novelty in scholarly communication and resource allocation, the vast volume of…
Although simulation represents a major advance in the understanding of problems in complex systems, the field currently does not has standards in place that would guide the reporting of the data underlying each model, the process for model…
Peer review is the primary means of quality control in academia; as an outcome of a peer review process, program and area chairs make acceptance decisions for each paper based on the review reports and scores they received. Quality of…
Systematic reviews are essential to summarizing the results of different clinical and social science studies. The first step in a systematic review task is to identify all the studies relevant to the review. The task of identifying relevant…
Peer Assessment is a task of analysis and commenting on student's writing by peers, is core of all educational components both in campus and in MOOC's. However, with the sheer scale of MOOC's & its inherent personalised open ended learning,…
The evaluation of recommendation systems is a complex task. The offline and online evaluation metrics for recommender systems are ambiguous in their true objectives. The majority of recently published papers benchmark their methods using…
To help researchers conduct a systematic review or meta-analysis as efficiently and transparently as possible, we designed a tool (ASReview) to accelerate the step of screening titles and abstracts. For many tasks - including but not…
The use of outcome control modes of research evaluation exercises is ever more frequent. They are conceived as tools to stimulate increased levels of research productivity, and to guide choices in allocating components of government…
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…
In a university, research assessments are organized at different policy levels (faculties, research council) in different contexts (funding, council membership, personnel evaluations). Each evaluation requires its own focus and methodology.…