Post-Publication Peer Review: Opening Up Scientific Conversation

Hunter, Jane

doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00063

Cited by 62 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…17,18 Post-publication peer-review services such as F1000, Publons and Pubpeer are opening up new horizons to the scientific community. 19 A good example indicating the importance of this process is the rise and fall of STAP (stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency). 20 According to Nature news: 'Two papers published in Nature in January 2014 promised to revolutionise the way stem cells are made by showing that simply putting differentiated cells under stress can 'reprogram' them and make them pluripotent -able to develop into any type of tissue in the body.'…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Altmetric: Top 50 dental articles in 2014

Kolahi¹,

Khazaei

2016

Br Dent J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Altmetric: Top 50 dental articles in 2014

Kolahi¹,

Khazaei

2016

Br Dent J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Peer review is one example of a highly institutionalized process. Even with the recent debates about the peer-review process (see Hunter, 2012), declaring that a piece of scholarship has undergone peer review implies that a set of highly patterned steps have taken place to achieve the important task of certifying and validating scholarly work. Routines are not defined, however, by a wellformalized set of steps.…”

Section: Routinesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research data and metadata curation as institutional issues

Mayernik

2015

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research data curation initiatives must support heterogeneous kinds of projects, data, and metadata. This article examines variability in data and metadata practices using "institutions" as the key theoretical concept. Institutions, in the sense used here, are stable patterns of human behavior that structure, legitimize, or delegitimize actions, relationships, and understandings within particular situations. Based on prior conceptualizations of institutions, a theoretical framework is presented that outlines 5 categories of "institutional carriers" for data practices: (a) norms and symbols, (b) intermediaries, (c) routines, (d) standards, and (e) material objects. These institutional carriers are central to understanding how scientific data and metadata practices originate, stabilize, evolve, and transfer. This institutional framework is applied to 3 case studies: the Center for Embedded Networked Sensing (CENS), the Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) network, and the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR). These cases are used to illustrate how institutional support for data and metadata management are not uniform within a single organization or academic discipline. Instead, broad spectra of institutional configurations for managing data and metadata exist within and across disciplines and organizations.

show abstract

“…Any system which could effectively weed out all low quality research would likely be punitively expensive and time-consuming. Consequently, some have suggested a stronger role for quality assurance activities after publication -'post-publication peer review' (Hunter 2012). The rise of open access electronic publication allows for a type of crowd-sourced peer review -the 'many eyes' of other academics evaluating research and judging its quality.…”

Section: Peer Review Does Not Guarantee Research Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The limitations of quantitative social science for informing public policy

Jerrim¹,

Vries²

2017

Evidence &Amp; Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quantitative social science (QSS) has the potential to make an important contribution to public policy. However it also has a number of limitations, many of which are unknown or poorly understood by those not familiar with quantitative methodology. The aim of this paper is to explain these limitations to a non-specialist audience and to identify a number of ways in which QSS research could be improved to better inform public policy.

show abstract

Post-Publication Peer Review: Opening Up Scientific Conversation

Cited by 62 publications

References 2 publications

Altmetric: Top 50 dental articles in 2014

Altmetric: Top 50 dental articles in 2014

Research data and metadata curation as institutional issues

The limitations of quantitative social science for informing public policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About