letting the daylight in: reviewing the reviewers and other ways to maximize transparency in science
Clicks: 237
ID: 154577
2012
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Popular Article
30.0
/100
237 views
23 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
PopularRanked #71 of 128 articles by views in population health management
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 128 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
With the emergence of online publishing, opportunities to maximize transparency of scientific research have grown considerably. However, these possibilities are still only marginally used. We argue for the implementation of (1) peer-reviewed peer review, (2) transparent editorial hierarchies, and (3) online data publication. First, peer-reviewed peer-review entails a community-wide review system in which reviews are published online and rated by peers. Reviewers with higher average ratings are weighted more heavily in publication decisions, thereby ensuring academic quality of reviews. Second, reviewers who write many highly regarded reviews may move to higher editorial positions. This leads to a transparent basis for editorial hierarchies and prevents politically inspired editorial appointments. Third, online publication of data ensures the possibility of independent verification of inferential claims in published papers. This counters statistical cherry-picking and data massaging to obtain favorable results. We illustrate the benefits of these strategies by discussing an example in which the classical publication system has gone awry, namely controversial IQ research. We argue that this case would have likely been avoided using more transparent publication practices. We argue that the proposed system leads to better reviews, meritocratic editorial hierarchies, and a higher degree of replicability of statistical analyses. Therefore it leads to a publication system that more fully benefits from the advantages and possibilities offered by online, open access publication.
| Reference Key |
wicherts2012frontiersletting
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Jelte M Wicherts;Rogier A Kievit;Marjan eBakker;Denny eBorsboom |
| Journal | population health management |
| Year | 2012 |
| DOI |
10.3389/fncom.2012.00020
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.