Peer-reviewed physics for Wikipedia: PLOS ONE Topic Pages (PLOS One Blog)

PLOS One Blog: Peer-reviewed physics for Wikipedia: PLOS ONE Topic Pages. “Despite Wikipedia’s importance as a resource for both practicing physicists and the wider community, it is rare for professional physicists to contribute, in part because there are few, if any, professional incentives to do so. We’re all in agreement that researchers should receive proper attribution for our work (which is why PLOS ONE supports ORCID); and as credit is not given for submitting or editing Wikipedia pages, only a small fraction of the physicists that I asked about this have edited even a single Wikipedia page. With this in mind, we’re excited to introduce PLOS ONE Topic Pages, which are peer-reviewed review articles written with Wikipedia in mind. These provide opportunities for author attribution and will result in both journal articles and Wikipedia pages of high quality and utility.”

Nature: Huge peer-review study reveals lack of women and non-Westerners

Nature: Huge peer-review study reveals lack of women and non-Westerners. “Women are inadequately represented as peer reviewers, journal editors and last authors of studies, according to an analysis of manuscript submissions to an influential biomedical journal. The study looked at all submissions made to the open-access title eLife from its launch in 2012 to 2017 — nearly 24,000 in total. It found that women worldwide, and researchers outside North America and Europe, were less likely to be peer reviewers, editors and last authors. The paper — which hasn’t itself yet been peer-reviewed — was posted on the preprint server bioRxiv1 on 29 August.”

EurekAlert: PLOS announces new website for peer reviewers

EurekAlert: PLOS announces new website for peer reviewers . “The Reviewer Center is designed to support reviewers working on manuscripts submitted to PLOS journals, with information and resources freely available to anyone–those interested in learning more about how peer review works, those looking for instructional resources, and those reviewing for other journals and publishers. All content is provided under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license, meaning it is free and open for anyone to access, regardless of whether they review for PLOS.”

Twitter for Scientists: an Idea Whose Time Has Finally Come? (Chronicle of Higher Education)

Chronicle of Higher Education: Twitter for Scientists: an Idea Whose Time Has Finally Come?. “There’s abundant evidence that widely sharing a research finding in just one or two simple sentences greatly increases its use and effectiveness. But, ugh, that usually means Twitter — in the eyes of many, a low-attention-span cesspool of trolls, political partisans, and amateur comedians known more for braggadocio and snark than reason and facts. Now, with federal backing, there’s another option.”

NPR: Scientists Aim To Pull Peer Review Out Of The 17th Century

NPR: Scientists Aim To Pull Peer Review Out Of The 17th Century. “The technology that drives science forward is forever accelerating, but the same can’t be said for science communication. The basic process still holds many vestiges from its early days — that is the 17th century. Some scientists are pressing to change that critical part of the scientific enterprise.”

Retraction Watch: Can you spot a fake? New tool aims to help journals identify fake reviews

Retraction Watch: Can you spot a fake? New tool aims to help journals identify fake reviews. “Fake peer reviews are a problem in academic publishing. A big problem. Many publishers are taking proactive steps to limit the effects, but massive purges of papers tainted by problematic reviews continue to occur; to date, more than 500 papers have been retracted for this reason. In an effort to help, Clarivate Analytics is unveiling a new tool as part of the release of ScholarOne Manuscripts, its peer review and submission software in December, 2017. We spoke to Chris Heid, Head of Product for ScholarOne, about the new pilot program to detect unusual submission and peer review activity that may warrant further investigation by the journal.”

Chronicle of Higher Education: A Revolt at a Journal Puts Peer Review Under the Microscope

Chronicle of Higher Education: A Revolt at a Journal Puts Peer Review Under the Microscope. “When controversial papers prompt editorial-board mutinies, critics often see examples of political correctness run amok. But this case doesn’t quite fit that narrative. While many scholars who resigned from the board and signed the petition freely admit they find the views expressed by the author reprehensible, their primary concern centers on a matter of editorial process: The paper was rejected by peer reviewers, editorial-board members say, but it was published anyway.”