Problems with “natural selection of academic papers”

Egghe, Leo

doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0395-9

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…But each individual reviewing assignment is voluntary and timeconsuming. Tite and Schroter [130], Egghe [53], and Ware [134] all reported workload as a big problem in recruiting qualified reviewers. Our survey of reviewers, although it was not a random sample, did indicate a substantial time investment by the respondents: 65.6% reported spending 45-120 minutes on average to review a 6-8 page conference paper.…”

Section: Rewarding Reviewersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping the Landscape of Peer Review in Computing Education Research

Petre

Sanders

McCartney

et al. 2020

Proceedings of the Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peer review is a mainstay of academic publication -indeed, it is the peer-review process that provides much of the publications' credibility. As the number of computing education conferences and the number of submissions increase, the need for reviewers grows. This report does not attempt to set standards for reviewing; rather, as a first step toward meeting the need for well qualified reviewers, it presents an overview of the ways peer review is used in various venues, both inside computing education and, for comparison, in closely-related areas outside our field. It considers four key components of peer review in some depth: criteria, the review process, roles and responsibilities, and ethics and etiquette. To do so, it draws on relevant literature, guidance and forms associated with peer review, interviews with journal editors and conference chairs, and a limited survey of the computing education research community. In addition to providing an overview of practice, this report identifies a number of themes running through the discourse that have relevance for decision making about how best to conduct peer review for a given venue.

show abstract

Section: Rewarding Reviewersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping the Landscape of Peer Review in Computing Education Research

Petre

Sanders

McCartney

et al. 2020

Proceedings of the Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Understanding the role of open peer review and dynamic academic articles

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We welcome the commentary by L. Egghe [1] stimulating discussion on our recent article "Natural selection of academic papers" (NSAP) [2] that focuses on an important modern issue at the heart of the scientific enterprise -the open and continuous evaluation and evolution of research. We are also grateful to the editor of Scientometrics for giving us the opportunity to respond to some of the arguments by L. Egghe that we believe are inaccurate or require further comment.

show abstract

Quantifying the Volunteer Effort of Scientific Peer Reviewing

Golden

Schultz

2012

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A survey of reviewers at Monthly Weather Review shows how they perform their reviews and allows a calculation of how much volunteer effort goes into producing a scientific journal. W e are always amazed by the huge effort and the degree of seriousness that peer reviewers bring to the task of reading submitted manuscripts and writing reviews-a voluntary task that takes time away from their own research, other work responsibilities, and personal time. By providing written comments on manuscripts that have been submitted to journals for publication, reviewers improve the quality of manuscripts that eventually are published or they recommend rejection. In turn, reviewers benefit from having the chance to read the latest research before it is formally published, influence research that may ultimately be published, demonstrate the ability to perform high-quality reviews and become an associate editor or editor eventually, develop contacts and collaborations, and improve their own writing and science. The workload on reviewers can be tremendous. Apart from anecdotal evidence, however, quantitative measurement of the time spent on the peer-review process is largely unknown. This article presents the results of a two-year survey of reviewers at Monthly Weather Review and calculates the contribution of reviews by individual reviewers and collectively to the system as a whole. DATA AND METHODS.To improve the peerreview process qualitatively and quantitatively by gathering information that might decrease the time to editors' decisions for the benefit of authors, a brief survey was designed to find out more about how peer reviewers of Monthly Weather Review perform their reviews. Given that the principal impediment to timely decisions is the wait for late reviews, a decrease in the time that manuscripts reside with reviewers results in faster decisions. This survey was conducted over a 2-yr period from

show abstract

Problems with “natural selection of academic papers”

Cited by 5 publications

References 7 publications

Mapping the Landscape of Peer Review in Computing Education Research

Mapping the Landscape of Peer Review in Computing Education Research

Understanding the role of open peer review and dynamic academic articles

Quantifying the Volunteer Effort of Scientific Peer Reviewing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About