The Role of Publons in the Context of Open Peer Review

Silva, Jaime A. Teixeira da; Nazarovets, Serhii

doi:10.1007/s12109-022-09914-0

Cited by 23 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 94 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The lack of centralised data means that we do not have clear data about how many papers are submitted to journals each year and how many reviewers are needed to assess these, although there is a general sense that demands on editors and peer reviewers are increasing with more papers than ever entering the system. This alone may lead to burn out of editors and reviewers, leading to more refusals to peer review (da Silva & Nazarovets, 2022).…”

Section: Peer Review Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

What roles might automation play in the future of public administration journal peer review processes?

Dickinson,

Smith

2023

Aust J Public Adm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Publishing in journals is crucial in the creation of knowledge within the public administration field and the career advancements of individuals. Each year, more articles enter journal publishing systems, and it is becoming more difficult and time consuming for editors to secure reviewers. A range of technological applications have been developed that apply automation techniques to various aspects of the peer review process and these are explored in this paper. We find some potentially promising applications in terms of assessing aspects of quality and in identifying potential reviewers. The replacement of humans in review processes is less clear cut and there are dangers in exacerbating inequities within the field. The value of peer review is particularly important for early career researchers and building a community of scholarship in the public administration field. It is crucial we recognise this and do not lose positives of peer review processes to address some of the issues currently experienced.Points for practitioners Academic journals help create knowledge within the field of public administration and play a role in career advancement of individual academics. Yet, there are a number of well‐established challenges with peer review processes. Recent advancements in technologies such as Artificial Intelligence offer the potential to automate some processes associated with peer review. Several automation processes are already available and in use around some areas of peer review processes and these are explored in this paper. But it is unlikely that automation will replace humans in peer review processes, and it is important that the public administration community revisits the importance of these processes and considers how these are valued and rewarded.

show abstract

Section: Peer Review Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

What roles might automation play in the future of public administration journal peer review processes?

Dickinson,

Smith

2023

Aust J Public Adm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Конечно, этот факт не имеет смысла, если такие журналы публикуют научные работы. ISSN не запрещает журналам иметь одно и то же или схожие названия при условии, что им присвоен уникальный ISSN 7 (или eISSN, если речь идет об электронных журналах) 8 [66]. В настоящее время не ясно, будут ли вознаграждения за работу рецензента для журналов под эгидой Springer Nature и дальше распределяться через Web of Science.…”

Section: разбираем значение термина «хищнический» в редакционной поли...unclassified

A reflection on Springer Nature’s current editorial policies related to “predatory” journals and references

Teixeira da Silva

2023

Naučnyj redaktor i izdatelʹ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite its prominent position as one of the leading for-profit scholarly publishers of subscription and open access (OA) journals, and its membership of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), Springer Nature can be criticized for taking a vague approach in its editorial policies pertaining to “predatory” publishing. While cautioning authors and/or editors about the citation of papers that are published in “predatory” journals, the advice presented in the policies itself is flawed due its limitation to OA journals – thus apparently excluding the possibility that subscription journals might also be “predatory” and failing to specify precisely which journals authors and editors should be careful of, i.e., no source for the “predatory” definition of OA journals is indicated. Moreover, this vague set of policies does not have a publication date, nor is any authorship specified. The opacity of these aspects of these editorial policies limits their usefulness and weakens their objectives, namely in ostensibly offering scholarly advice to protect editors and authors. I argue that the Springer Nature policies pertaining to “predatory” publishing as they currently stand are not useful, and if left unchanged, can be a source of confusion or error for authors and editors of Springer Nature journals. In this connection, the identified risk is that if the poor advice indicated in those policies is heeded, it may encourage abuse, insults and/or indiscriminate profiling of academics, including those associated with Springer Nature journals. While assuming Springer Nature’s genuine intention to alert editors and authors against citing papers published in suspect scholarly venues, I argue that this editorial set of policies should either be rewritten to rely on clearer parameters, including a definitive list of journals for which “predatory” criteria have been defined, or abandoned as they are overly broad. The criticism is aimed at stimulating a discussion among other editors and publishers, especially COPE members.

show abstract

“…Finally, Figure 1 highlights the wider risk to data integrity in publishing by housing nonsense or fake "researchers" with an ORCID on Publons, which was a peer review rewards platform [23]. Even though Publons has now been phased out and amalgamated into Clarivate's Web of Science [24], there is a risk that fake or nonsense ORCID accounts that were once associated with Publons (Fig. 1C) are still associated with the Web of Science (Fig.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%