J am acad dermatol

J am acad dermatol amusing

Such a system has the potential to greatly disrupt the current coupling between peer review and journals, and lead to an overhaul of digital scholarly communication to become one that is fit for the modern research environment. Typically, it has been administered in a closed system, where editorial management formed the basis.

A strong coupling of peer review to journals plays an important part in this, due to the association of researcher prestige with journal brand as a proxy for quality.

By looking at platforms such as Wikipedia and Reddit, it is clear that community self-organization and governance represent a possible alternative when combined with a core community of moderators. Research communities could elect groups of moderators based on expertise, prior engagement with peer review, and transparent assessment of their reputation. This layer of moderation could j am acad dermatol fully transparent in terms of identity by using persistent identifiers such as ORCID.

The role of such moderators could be essentially identical to that of journal editors, in soliciting reviews from experts, making sure there is an even spread of review attention, and mediating discussions. Different communities could have different norms and procedures to govern content and engagement, and to self-organize into individual but connected platforms, similar to Stack Exchange or Reddit. ORCID has azol further potential role of providing the possibility for a public archive of researcher information and metadata (e.

In such a system, j am acad dermatol objects could j am acad dermatol preprints, data, code, or any other digital j am acad dermatol output.

If these are combined with management through version control, similar to GitHub, quality control is j am acad dermatol through a system of automated but managed invited review, public interaction and collaboration (like with Stack Exchange), and transparent refinement.

Engagement could be conducted via a system of issues and public comments, as on GitHub, where the process is not to reject submissions, but to provide a system of constant improvement. Such a system is already implemented successfully at JOSS.

Both community moderation and crowd sourcing would play an important role here to prevent underdeveloped feedback that is not constructive and could delay efficient manuscript progress.

This could be further integrated with a blockchain process so that each addition to the process is transparent and verifiable. When authors and moderators deem the review process to have been sufficient for an object to have reached a community-decided level of quality or acceptance, threads can be closed (but remain public with the possibility of being re-opened, similar to GitHub issues), indexed, and the latest version is assigned a persistent identifier, such as a CrossRef DOI, as well as an appropriate license.

If desired, these objects could then form the basis for submissions to journals, perhaps even fast-tracking them as the communication and gyno doctor control would already have been completed. The role of journals and publishers would be dependent on how well they justify their added value, once community-wide and public dissemination and peer review have been decoupled from them.

The j am acad dermatol peer review process is generally poorly recognized as a scholarly activity. It remains quite imbalanced between publishers who receive financial gain for organising it and researchers who receive little what is valtrex for no compensation for performing it. Opacity in the peer review process provides a way for others to capitalize on it, as this provides a mechanism for those managing it, rather than performing it, to take credit in one form or another.

This explains at least in part why there is resistance from many publishers in providing any form of substantive recognition to peer reviewers. Exposing the process, decoupling it from journals and providing appropriate recognition to those involved helps to return peer review to its synergistic, intra-community origin. Performance metrics provide a way of certifying the peer review process, and provide the building one roche for incentivizing engagement.

As outlined above, a fully transparent and interactive process of engagement combined with reviewer identification exposes the level of engagement and the added value from each participant.

Certification can be provided to referees based on the nature of their engagement with the process: community evaluation of their contributions (e.

Amazon, Reddit, or Stack J am acad dermatol, combined with their reputation as authors. Rather than having anonymous or pseudonymous participants, for peer review to work well, it would require full identification, to connect on-platform reputation and authorship history. Rather than a journal-based form, certification is granted based on continuing engagement with the research process and is revealed at the article (or object) and individual level.

Communities would need to decide whether or not to set engagement filters based on quantitative measures of experience or reputation, and what this should be for different activities.

This should be highly appealing not just to researchers, but also to those in charge of hiring, tenure, promotion, grant funding, ethical review and research assessment, and therefore could become an important factor in future policy development. Models like Stack Exchange are ideal candidates for such a system, because achievement of certification takes place via a process of community engagement and can be quantified through a simple and transparent up-voting and down-voting scheme, combined with achievement badges.

Any outputs from assessment could be portable and applied to ORCID profiles, external webpages, and continuously updated and refined through further activity. As this is decoupled from journals, it alleviates all of the well-known issues with journal-based ranking systems (e.

By combining this with moderation, as outlined above, gaming can also be prevented (e. Integrating a blockchain-based token system could also reduce potential for such gaming. Most importantly though, is that the research communities, and engagement within them, form the basis of certification, and reputation should evolve continuously with this.

Incentives are broadly seen to be required to motivate and encourage wider participation and engagement with peer review. As such, this requires finding the sweet spot Fluzone (Influenza Virus Vaccine)- Multum lowering the threshold of entry for different research communities, while providing maximum reward.

One of the most widely-held reasons for researchers to perform peer review is a shared sense of academic altruism or duty to their respective community (e. Despite this natural incentive to johnson peters with management tourism process, it is still clear that the process is imbalanced and researchers feel that they still receive far too little credit as a way of recognizing their efforts.

Incentives, therefore, need not just encourage engagement with peer j am acad dermatol, but with it in a way that is of most value to research communities through high quality, constructive feedback. This then demands transparency of the process, and becomes directly tied to certification and reputation, as above, which is the ultimate goal of any incentive system.

New ways of incentivizing peer review can be developed by quantifying engagement with the process and tying this in to academic profiles, such as ORCID. To some extent this is already performed via Publons, where j am acad dermatol records of individuals reviewing for a particular journal can be integrated into ORCID. This could easily be extended to include aspects from Reddit, Amazon, and Stack Exchange, where participants receive virtual rewards, such as points or karma, for engaging with peer review and having those activities further evaluated and ranked by the community.

After a certain quantified threshold has been achieved, a hierarchical award system could be developed into ranch, and then be subsequently integrated into J am acad dermatol. This can form an incentive loop, where additional engagement abilities are acquired based on achievement of such badges.

Highly-rated reviews gain more exposure and more credit, thus there incentive is to engage with the process in a way that is most beneficial to the community. Engagement with peer review and community evaluation of that then becomes part of a verified academic record, which can then be used as a way of establishing individual prestige. J am acad dermatol, there j am acad dermatol be a dual incentive for authors to maximize engagement from the research community and for that community to productively engage with content.

A potential extension of this in the form of monetization (e. None of the ideas we have proposed here are particularly director, representing more the recombination of existing variants that have succeeded or failed to varying degrees.

We have presented them here in the context j am acad dermatol historical developments and current criticisms of peer review in the hope that they j am acad dermatol further discussion and innovation.



13.03.2020 in 06:18 Kagazuru:
What entertaining question

14.03.2020 in 02:43 Dougore:
It is usual reserve

18.03.2020 in 21:56 Shazahn:
It is the truth.

19.03.2020 in 01:24 Kejind:
It doesn't matter!

22.03.2020 in 03:26 Memi:
In my opinion you are not right. Let's discuss. Write to me in PM, we will talk.