decoupling peer review from publication n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Decoupling Peer Review from Publication PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Decoupling Peer Review from Publication

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 16

Decoupling Peer Review from Publication - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 70 Views
  • Uploaded on

Decoupling Peer Review from Publication. Putting Time Back Into Science. Beyond the PDF2 Conference March 2013. Why Rubriq?. T ime spent on rejected papers each year Just for the 12,000 journals covered in the Web of Science database. 11,206,423 Hours (1,279 Years) . 16,202,941 Hours

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Decoupling Peer Review from Publication' - earl


Download Now An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
decoupling peer review from publication

Decoupling Peer Review from Publication

Putting Time Back Into Science

Beyond the PDF2 Conference

March 2013

why rubriq
Why Rubriq?

Time spent on rejected papers each year

Just for the 12,000 journals covered in the Web of Science database

11,206,423 Hours

(1,279 Years)

16,202,941 Hours

(1,850 Years)

two flavors of peer review
Two Flavors of Peer Review
  • TRADITIONAL
  • Journal Specific Criteria
  • Fit for our journal?
  • Journal as filter and prioritization structure
  • “PLoS ONE”
  • Valid Science Criteria
  • Why shouldn’t we publish?
  • Publish then filter articles
challenges of traditional peer review
Challenges of Traditional Peer Review
  • TRADITIONAL
  • Journal Specific Criteria
  • Fit for our journal?
  • Journal as filter and prioritization structure

“Journal Loops”

  • Silos
  • Sluggish
  • Opaque
  • Redundant
  • Subjective

Impact Factor – Reputation

JOURNALS

challenges post publication
Challenges: Post-Publication
  • “PLoS ONE”
  • Valid Science Criteria
  • Why shouldn’t we publish?
  • Publish then filter articles

“The Big Heap”

  • Initial reception
  • Stratification / Organization
  • Post-publication peer review

PAPERS

custom vs redundant elements
Custom vs. Redundant Elements
  • TRADITIONAL
  • Journal Specific Criteria
  • Fit for our journal?
  • Journal as filter and prioritization structure
  • “PLoS ONE”
  • Valid Science Criteria
  • Why shouldn’t we publish?
  • Publish then filter articles

Custom

Redundant

Redundant

a third flavor of peer review
A Third Flavor of Peer Review
  • TRADITIONAL
  • Journal Specific Criteria
  • Fit for our journal?
  • Journal as filter and prioritization structure
  • INDEPENDENT
  • Standardized Rating Criteria
  • Decoupled from Journal
  • Quantitative & Qualitative
  • Pre & Post Publication Peer Review
  • “PLoS ONE”
  • Valid Science Criteria
  • Why shouldn’t we publish?
  • Publish then filter articles
working together
Working Together
  • TRADITIONAL
  • Journal Specific Criteria
  • Recommend Journals for Authors
  • Supplement Decisions
  • Attract Papers
  • Better utilize Reviewers
  • INDEPENDENT
  • Standardized Rating Criteria
  • Performed in 1-2 weeks
  • Used to make journal recommendations
  • “PLoS ONE”
  • Valid Science Criteria
  • New source of papers
  • Fast track decision
  • Reduce costs per paper

Redundant

Custom

our scorecard rubric
Our Scorecard Rubric

Quality of Research

Quality of Presentation

Novelty & Interest

our process
Our Process

1-2 weeks

1

Classification & Manuscript Report

2

Reviewer Report (R-score)

3

Journal

Recommendations

rubriq summary
Rubriq Summary
  • INDEPENDENT
  • Standardized Rating Criteria
  • Decoupled from Journal
  • Quantitative & Qualitative
  • Pre & Post Publication Peer Review
  • Same Reviewers as Journals
  • Structured Reviews
  • Editorial Processes (e.g, iThenticate)
  • Seamless Pre & Post Publication Peer Review
  • Reviewer Compensation Models
  • Can Supplement or Replace Journal Peer Review
exploring new models
Exploring New Models
  • Author as buyer (current model)
    • Focus on Speed, Control, and Choice for Authors
    • Self-Publish Option
    • Pre-Approved Option with Mega-OA Partners
    • Introduce Market Dynamics (Journal Selection)
    • Reviewer Payments
    • Free for Publishers / Lower Barrier of Entry for New Journals
  • Institution as buyer?
  • Funder as buyer?
  • Publisher as buyer?
thanks
Keith Collier

keith.collier@rubriq.com

Thanks