Speeding Up the Publication Process at PLOS ONE | EveryONE: The PLOS ONE Blog
At PLOS ONE we like to speed up the publication process wherever we can. We like science to be out in the open, and publication of peer-reviewed research to take place without undue delays, so that others can use and build upon the findings. Aligned with our founding mission, we aim to be as fast as we can while remaining true to our publication criteria and without compromising the quality of the peer review process.
Data Sharing in PLOS ONE: An Analysis of Data Availability Statements
Only about 20% of statements indicate that data are deposited in a repository, which the PLOS policy states is the preferred method. More commonly, authors state that their data are in the paper itself or in the supplemental information, though it is unclear whether these data meet the level of sharing required in the PLOS policy.
Peer Review of Health Research Funding Proposals: A Systematic Map and Systematic Review of Innovations for Effectiveness and Efficiency
Virtual peer review using videoconferencing or teleconferencing appears promising for reducing costs by avoiding the need for reviewers to travel, but again any consequences for quality have not been adequately assessed.
High-Impact and Transformative Science Metrics: Definition, Exemplification, and Comparison
A novel set of text- and citation-based metrics that can be used to identify high-impact and transformative works. The 11 metrics can be grouped into seven types: Radical-Generative, Radical-Destructive, Risky, Multidisciplinary, Wide Impact, Growing Impact, and Impact (overall).
Does Bibliometric Research Confer Legitimacy to Research Assessment Practice? a Sociological Study of Reputational Control, 1972-2016
A growing gap exists between an academic sector with little capacity for collective action and increasing demand for routine performance assessment by research organizations and funding agencies. This gap has been filled by database providers. By selecting and distributing research metrics, these commercial providers have gained a powerful role in defining de-facto standards of research excellence without being challenged by expert authority.
Assessing Scientists for Hiring, Promotion, and Tenure
A growing number of scientific leaders believe the current system of faculty incentives and rewards is misaligned with the needs of society. Here we propose six principles for assessing scientists and associated research and policy implications.
The Fractured Logic of Blinded Peer Review in Journals
The case for “blinding” to make journal peer review fair seems less and less plausible to me for the long run. It even seems antithetical to ultimately reducing the problems it’s a bandaid solution for.
It’s Time to Do Something About Predatory Publishers
Sure, it’s happened to all of us — the invitation to be keynote speaker at a conference you’ve never heard of or an invitation to sit on an editorial board for a journal with a name you don’t recognize.
How Much Would Each Researcher Receive if Funding Was Distributed Equally?
A paper arguing that researchers could, on average, maintain current PhD student and Postdoc employment levels, and still have at their disposal a moderate to considerable budget for travel and equipment, depeding on the country.
Automatic Jargon Identifier for Scientists Engaging with the Public
Scientists are required to communicate science and research not only to other experts in the field, but also to scientists and experts from other fields, as well as to the public and policymakers. One fundamental suggestion when communicating with non-experts is to avoid professional jargon.