• Home
  • Search results
OpenUP Hub - Search results
Authors/Initiative

House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, appointed by the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited

Short Description

This is a report into peer review in scientific publications. 

Despite enormous pressure on public spending, the £4.6bn per annum funding for science and research programmes has been protected in cash terms and ring-fenced against future pressures during the Spending Review period. This strong

settlement for science and research is a demonstration of the Government’s commitment to rebalancing the economy and promoting economic growth. The ring-fence around funding for science and research programmes, including for the first time HEFCE research programmes, provides stability and certainty to the research base. 

Link

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/1535/1535.pdf

Additional Info

  • Domain Peer Review
  • Type of resource Papers
Authors/Initiatives

PRE (Peer Review Evaluation) 

Short Description

Several market research studies have evaluated peer review in recent years. A goal of the present research, commissioned by PRE, is to extend those findings to provide insight into the indicators of quality of peer review. In January, 2016 Wicherts proposed that transparency of the peer review process may be seen as an indicator of the quality of peer review. By testing a questionnaire tool with several audiences with different methods, he concludes that the tool has promising reliability and validity in assessing transparency of the peer-review process as an indicator of peer-review quality. In this market research, we ask respondents to rate the helpfulness of several criteria based in part on Wicherts’ 14-item tool which rates the transparency of a journal’s peer review process, regardless of peer review model, open or blinded, pre-publication or post-publication. 

Link

http://www.pre-val.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/PRE-surveywhitepaper.pdf 

Additional Info

  • Domain Peer Review
  • Type of resource Reports
Authors/Initiative

Adam Smith (This report has been produced within a contract with the European Commission.)

Short Description

The European Commission joined many other research funders in 2013 when it announced that one central requirement of future research grantees of Horizon 2020 would be that their research publications be made freely available to all. The Commission’s vision is open access for research outputs, as announced in its 2012 Communication. This states: “Information already paid for by the public purse should not be paid for again each time it is accessed or used, and […] should benefit European companies and citizens to the full.”
The Commission has no preferred model for how to achieve open access. It is searching for innovation wherever it may be found, from traditional commercial publishers, new organisations, distributed academic networks, and research libraries. The goal of achieving open access is a public one that sits above private interests. This sometimes means that businesses are obliged to evolve and adapt in light of the project to move towards open access.
The move to open access scholarly publishing has been accelerating for many years. It is driven by many factors, including: the emergence and expansion of the internet, which enables the fast and free dissemination of research outputs; the fact that many academic libraries are reporting the rising cost of subscription journals and the declining number of journals they can subscribe to; a moral case that publicly funded research should be freely available for all to see; and a case that more dissemination of knowledge will lead to more innovation and therefore economic growth.

Link

https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/system/files/ged/oa_report.pdf

Additional Info

  • Domain Peer Review
  • Type of resource Reports

Authors/Initiative

Taylor & Francis

Short Description

In 2015, Taylor & Francis asked researchers from around the world to take part in an online survey and a series of focus groups, which aimed to explore what the experience of peer review was like for those involved in it on a regular basis: for the authors who write the papers, for the reviewers who review them, and for the journal editors who oversee the process.

Link

http://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/custom/uploads//2016/07/Peer-review-supplement-motivations-and-support.pdf

Additional Info

  • Domain Peer Review
  • Type of resource Surveys
Authors/Initiative

 the Research Information Network

Short Description

This guide has been produced by The Research Information Network to provide researchers with an understanding of the peer review process and some of the current issues surrounding the debate about peer review.

Link

http://rin.ac.uk/system/files/attachments/Peer-review-guide-screen.pdf

Additional Info

  • Domain Peer Review
  • Type of resource Reports
Page 17 of 22
Unless otherwise indicated, content hosted on OpenUP Hub is licensed under an Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).