scholarly peer review
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/3/2019 Scholarly Peer Review
1/15
Physics 135 SSG
Module I, Week II
-
8/3/2019 Scholarly Peer Review
2/15
Process of evaluation by qualified individuals
Assess suitability for publication
Maintain standards of quality Provide credibility within a field
Individuals are often tenured faculty
A business generating $19 billion in revenue Scientific, Medical, & Technical (STM) disciplines
60% of this revenue comes from North America
-
8/3/2019 Scholarly Peer Review
3/15
Primary Source
Most scientific research papers
Reveal original experimental data Offer interpretations as conclusions
Secondary Source
Review Journals that provide Synthesis Highlight a fields advances and research trends
-
8/3/2019 Scholarly Peer Review
4/15
Fundamental Errors undermine Conclusions
Process is not designed to detect fraud
Reviewers do not have full access to the data set Plagiarism does exist
Reviewers do have access to full-text manuscripts
0.3% of NIH-funded scientists admitted faking data 1.4% of these scientists admit to plagiarism
4.7% admit to autoplagiarism (re-publishing data)
-
8/3/2019 Scholarly Peer Review
5/15
Slow Process due to massive Reviewer workload Abuse of Inside Information by Reviewers
Unpublished info used for personal/professional gain Impartial Review
Valid work is wrongfully rejected
Especially in narrow or interdisciplinary fields
Limited Expertise leads to Diversity of Opinion
Significance of an idea may never spread widely
Discussion
-
8/3/2019 Scholarly Peer Review
6/15
Hierarchical Journal Submission First submit a paper to Nature, then lower journals
Everyone does this, but its a waste of potential This time could be used for additional experiments
Obsessing over the Impact Factor # of times a paper is published within ~2 years
Used as a proxy for the prestige of a Journal Pursuit of truth before pursuit of glory
The duty of a society of scientists
-
8/3/2019 Scholarly Peer Review
7/15
-
8/3/2019 Scholarly Peer Review
8/15
-
8/3/2019 Scholarly Peer Review
9/15
-
8/3/2019 Scholarly Peer Review
10/15
-
8/3/2019 Scholarly Peer Review
11/15
-
8/3/2019 Scholarly Peer Review
12/15
Research critique - careful appraisal of the strengthsand weaknesses of the study
Intellectual research critique - is a careful, completeexamination of a study to judge its strengths,weaknesses, logical links, meaning and significance
-
8/3/2019 Scholarly Peer Review
13/15
1. Read and critique the entire study2. Examine organization and presentation a
good report is complete, concise, logicallyorganized, and free of excessive jargon3. Examine the significance of the problem and
its broader implications4. Identify strengths and weaknesses all
studies have both
-
8/3/2019 Scholarly Peer Review
14/15
5. Be objective, realistic, and balanced dont beoverly critical or flattering
6. Examine the authors inclusion of the studys
limitations and weaknesses were they objective?7. Provide rationale for your critique and sources
from current literature8.
Do you find errors of fact and interpretation?9. Is content repeated or duplicated? Could it bepresented better, or more condensed?
-
8/3/2019 Scholarly Peer Review
15/15
Failure to articulate the assumptions associatedwith the research
Failure to adequately describe data collection
process Failure to examine existing body of knowledge Failure to describe omissions in current
understandings Failure to identify implications of the study