E-mail Updates Sign Up for E-mail Updates

Join our webinar on transparency in peer review

Announcing a new webinar to mark peer review week 2017

Transparency-webinar-montage-picture.jpg

Peer review (#peerreview) of research output is the heart of scientific evaluation. While most researchers value the current peer review process, they believe there is room for improvement. In recent years transparency has become the focus of many innovations. The range of such initiatives spans from providing more insights around the process such as the number of reviewers to opening up the whole communication between editor, reviewers and authors.

Peer Review Week 2017 (#PeerRevWk17) is taking place between 11th-17th September. The theme of this year is transparency (watch out for content #TransparencyInReview). Here at Elsevier we have been working on making peer review a more transparent and rewarding research output for several years.

Since late 2014 we have been publishing peer review reports alongside articles (see here). At the same time we are providing more insights to reviewers of a manuscript about the editorial decision making process.

Clearly this was just the beginning. To celebrate this year’s peer review week we are hosting a live online discussion on Monday 11 September, 2017, for which we have drawn together a panel of experts enthusiastic about transparency. We have invited a journal editor, who is practicing publication of peer review reports alongside articles; a researcher who has been reviewing journal manuscripts for years and has initiated the peer review openness initiative (#PRO), and the head of the public engagement programme of a non-profit organization aiming to raising public awareness around the importance of peer review in scholarly publication.

What will the webinar cover?

Topics up for discussion during the 60-minute webinar will include:

  • Why transparency in peer review matters
  • How reviewers can add more transparency in to the research output
  • How can editors specifically and researchers in general benefit from transparency
  • How society and the public can benefit from a more transparent peer review process

You can follow the discussion on Twitter using #PeerRevWk17 and #TransparencyInReview

The webinar will be moderated by Catriona Fennell, Director of Publishing Services who is responsible for Elsevier’s publishing integrity and reproducibility programs.

Join the webinar

The webinar will take place on Monday 11th September, 2017 at 15.00 (CEST). You can register via the Publishing Campus where you will find a range of other online training and support materials.

Don’t forget to check out the other articles pertaining to peer review week 2017 (see “related stories” below).


Introducing the presenters

Riaz AghaRiaz Agha, Managing and Executive Editor, IJS Publishing Group

@riazagha

https://www.linkedin.com/in/riazagha

Riaz Agha founded the International Journal of Surgery (IJS) Publishing Group in 2003.  As the editor of International Journal of Surgery, he chose to publish peer review reports alongside accepted article since October 2014 (see an example).

Riaz was an invited member of the EVISE user board for Elsevier and a former Council Member for the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). He sits on the Web Committee for the World Association of Medical Editors and an Ambassador for Enterprise UK.

In addition to his editorial work, he is a Specialty Registrar in Plastic Surgery in the London Deanery and a doctoral student at Balliol College, University of Oxford where he is a Clarendon Scholar. In 2010, he was awarded a Scholarship from NICE for his work on national surgical surveillance. He subsequently worked with the CQC to improve the coverage and focus of their indicators for acute hospital services.

Emily Jesper-MirEmily Jesper-Mir, Sense about Science

@Senseaboutsci

www.senseaboutscience.org

Emily Jesper-Mir is head of partnerships and governance at Sense about Science, an independent campaigning charity that challenges the misrepresentation of science and evidence in public life.

She heads up their public engagement programme helping scientists to communicate difficult research findings simply and accurately. She also leads their peer review programme, which includes chairing our peer review workshops for early career researchers and advocating peer review as a useful tool for the public to make sense of science and evidence.

Before joining Sense about Science Emily was the managing editor of the international, peer reviewed journal BJOG for five years, a publication of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. She also worked as assistant editor at the Novartis Foundation, a small science charity promoting excellence in science, as well as spending two years as a biological patent analyst for Thomson Scientific. She has a degree in Biological Science from UMIST, Manchester.

Richard D MoreyRichard D. Morey, Cardiff University

@richarddmorey

http://opennessinitiative.org

Richard is Reader in the School of Psychology at the Cardiff University. He earned a PhD in Cognition and Neuroscience and a Master’s degree in Statistics from the University of Missouri, and is the author of over 60 articles and book chapters. Currently, Richard is a statistical advisor for the journal Psychological Science and an associate editor at the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. In 2017, Richard and his collaborators launched the Peer Reviewers' Openness initiative (http://opennessinitiative.org) which aims to increase the transparency of science through the collective action of peer reviewers.


What is Peer Review Week?

As the peer review week website explains, this global event, which is now in its third year, celebrates the role that peer review plays in maintaining scientific quality. The event brings together individuals, institutions, and organizations committed to sharing the central message that good peer review, whatever shape or form it might take, is critical to scholarly communications.

This year’s theme is transparency in review.

Tags


Contributors


Comments


comments powered by Disqus