Better science through peer review

January 08, 2020

The BioScience Talks podcast features discussions of topical issues related to the biological sciences.

Peer review lies at the heart of the grant selection process and, by extension, the scientific enterprise itself. For scientific curiosity to be shaped into concrete research, grant-making bodies must decide which research questions are in the most urgent need of answers--and which researchers are best able to answer them. To inform those decisions, funders rely on grant reviewers--most of whom volunteer their time--to evaluate numerous proposals and recommend the most promising among them. However, despite its massive importance to science and society, peer review itself remains inadequately studied and often poorly understood.

To shed light on this critical institution, American Institute of Biological Sciences chief scientist Stephen Gallo and his colleagues recently published the results of a major survey. It is joined by a grant review report from Publons, a company housed within Clarivate Analytics that helps researchers track their research and review outputs and works to encourage greater recognition of scientists' work.

The publications bear striking similarities. In particular, both highlight the value embedded in the present system, with 78% of participants in the Publons survey reporting that peer review is the best way to allocate research funding and 87% of the respondents to the AIBS survey stating that peer review has had a positive effect on their careers. Troublingly, however, the surveys unearthed potential sustainability problems, with a small number of reviewers carrying out a disproportionately large share of the reviews. Publons, for instance, found that 4% of reviewers were responsible for 25% of the work; the AIBS survey had similar results. To improve reviewer participation and increase the sustainability of the system, the reports encouraged greater professional recognition for reviewer efforts, which are infrequently considered in hiring and promotion decisions.

In this episode of BioScience Talks, we are joined by Stephen Gallo and Matthew Hayes, director of Publons, who discuss the survey results and shed light on the future of peer review.
-end-
To hear the whole discussion, visit this link (http://bioscience-talks.aibs.org/better-science-through-peer-review/) for this latest episode of the BioScience Talks podcast.

BioScience, published monthly by Oxford Journals, is the journal of the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS). BioScience is a forum for integrating the life sciences that publishes commentary and peer-reviewed articles. The journal has been published since 1964. AIBS is an organization for professional scientific societies and organizations, and individuals, involved with biology. AIBS provides decision-makers with high-quality, vetted information for the advancement of biology and society. Follow BioScience on Twitter @BioScienceAIBS.

Oxford Journals is a division of Oxford University Press. Oxford Journals publishes well over 300 academic and research journals covering a broad range of subject areas, two-thirds of which are published in collaboration with learned societies and other international organizations. The division been publishing journals for more than a century, and as part of the world's oldest and largest university press, has more than 500 years of publishing expertise behind it. Follow Oxford Journals on Twitter @OxfordJournals

American Institute of Biological Sciences

Related Sustainability Articles from Brightsurf:

New method adds and subtracts for sustainability's true measure
Policies across the world seek clear paths to sustainability, but it takes a broad look to know their true impact.

Striving and stumbling towards sustainability amongst pandas and people
Understanding how achieving one of the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals spins off more SDG success -- or sabotages progress on another goal across spatial and administrative boundaries.

Is less more? How consumers view sustainability claims
Communicating a product's reduced negative attribute might have unintended consequences if consumers approach it with the wrong mindset.

Innovations for sustainability in a post-pandemic future
The COVID-19 pandemic has thrust the world into turmoil and disrupted the status quo, but it is also providing opportunities for innovation in the way we live and work.

Thematic package: Corona and sustainability
The COVID-19 pandemic remains an important topic throughout the world.

Digital agriculture paves the road to agricultural sustainability
In a study published in Nature Sustainability, researchers outline how to develop a more sustainable land management system through data collection and stakeholder buy-in.

Lack of transparency in urban sustainability rankings
UPV/EHU researchers have looked at the quality and good methodological practices employed and published in 21 rankings, indexes and similar tools used for classifying and monitoring urban sustainability.

New research shows sustainability can be a selling point for new ingredients
The first UK consumer study on the use of Bambara Groundnut as an ingredient in products has shown that sharing information on its sustainable features increased consumers' positive emotional connection to food.

Sustainability strategies more successful when managers believe in them
New research from Cass Business School has found that business sustainability strategies can succeed alongside mainstream competitive strategies when managers believe in them.

Sustainability claims about rubber don't stick
Companies work hard to present an environmentally responsible image. How well do these claims stack up?

Read More: Sustainability News and Sustainability Current Events
Brightsurf.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.