The paper presents fascinating analysis of peer review practices in terms of tension between gift-giving and accumulation. Analysis is based on case studies of three publishing outlets: #PsychologicalScience, #Collabra and @PeerCommunityIn#RegisteredReports.
"Publishing [#PeerReview] reports did not significantly compromise referees’ willingness to review, recommendations, or turn-around times. Younger and non-academic scholars were more willing to…review & provided more positive & objective recommendations. Male referees tended to write more constructive reports…Only 8.1% of referees agreed to reveal their identity in the published report."
Any opinions on #Qeios [0][1] for #OpenPeerReview? Columbia Uni Mailman SchPublicHealth [2] and NYT [3] seem to take it seriously. I'm rather annoyed at #F1000Research , which pressured me for a fast report on v2 of a paper but after 5 months and several reminders hasn't published my review of v2 [4].
@msiemund und ich haben einen ersten Entwurf eines Referenzrahmens für digitale Wissenschaftskommunikation von Forschenden erarbeitet und stellen ihn nun dank @ZfdG im #OpenPeerReview offen zur Diskussion.
Update. "We argue that [the] collaborative knowledge practices of inclusive editorial governance, #OpenAccess, and #OpenPeerReview of the Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy, [#JITP] are fundamentally #feminist, as they diversify scholarly voices and increase access to the material channels in and through which knowledge circulates."
#F1000Research is not going to get many reviewers for its #OpenPeerReview system if after two and a half months, a review of version 2 of a paper is still not published:
"For the moment, we recommend that if #LLMs are used to write scholarly reviews, reviewers should disclose their use and accept full responsibility for their reports’ accuracy, tone, reasoning and originality."
PS: "For the moment" these tools can help reviewers string words together, not judge quality. We have good reasons to seek evaluative comments from human experts.
Update. I acknowledge that there's no bright line between using these tools to polish one's language and using them to shape one's judgments of quality. I also ack that these tools are steadily getting better at "knowing the field". That's why this is a hard problem.