1 / 5

UNQUESTIONABLE NEED FOR PEER-REVIEWING

This paper discusses the unquestionable need for peer reviewing in scientific publications, emphasizing the visibility of major papers, improvement of manuscript content, and the identification of research excellence. It examines the problems linked to reviewers, publishers, and authors, including conservatism in review processes, conflicts of interest, and the excessive focus on impact factors. Possible solutions such as changes in editorial policies, open peer reviewing, and the use of open archives are proposed to enhance the scientific publishing system.

roman
Télécharger la présentation

UNQUESTIONABLE NEED FOR PEER-REVIEWING

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. UNQUESTIONABLE NEED FOR PEER-REVIEWING 1. Visibility of major papers 2. Improvement of manuscript content 3. Identification of excellence Colloque de l’Académie des sciences "Évolution des publications scientifiques - Le regard des chercheurs" des 14-15 mai 2007

  2. PROBLEMS LINKED TO REVIEWERS 1. Conservatism: fashion versus novelty 2. Priority given to technology 3. Duration of reviewing 4. Conflict of interest with authors

  3. PROBLEMS LINKED TO PUBLISHERS 1. Search for “scoops” 2. Are editors in chief always competent?

  4. PROBLEMS LINKED TO AUTHORS 1. Confusion between quality of a manuscript and impact factor of the journal 2. Excessive importance of impact factor for grants and career 3. Risk of transformingscientists into “professionals” of publication

  5. POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS 1. Change in the editorial policy of major journals 2. Open peer-reviewing 3. Open archives preceding publication

More Related