Transparent evaluation of scholarly communications

Keywords: transparency, evaluation, scholarly communication

Abstract

The processes behind the evaluation of scholarly communications are mostly conducted behind closed doors, with only the final published output accessible to readers. The criteria used to decide which manuscripts are sent out for peer-review and ultimately accepted for publication are often vague and hard to interpret. Without access to peer-review reports and editorial comments, it is also unclear how published manuscripts have been assessed. In this conversation, we will discuss the benefits of transparent scholarly communication and the challenges of implementing fully-transparent processes. We will also cover the how social media and podcasts can be used to demystify the publication process by providing an open forum for discussing the myriad publication processes that are typically unwritten, such as rebutting reviewer comments.

The recording of the live podcast episode is at https://youtu.be/1Xp3IXaq970

Author Biographies

Daniel Quintana, University of Oslo

Dr Dan Quintana is a Senior Researcher in biological psychiatry at the University of Oslo. Together with Dr James Heathers, he hosts the podcast Everything Hertz – a podcast by scientists, for scientists – where they discuss methodology, scientific life, and at times use bad language. They will do a live episode of Everything Hertz at this year’s Munin conference.

James Heathers

Dr James Heathers is a researcher at Northeasthern University. Together with Dr Dan Quintana, he hosts the podcast Everything Hertz – a podcast by scientists, for scientists – where they discuss methodology, scientific life, and at times use bad language. They will do a live episode of Everything Hertz at this year’s Munin conference.

Published
2020-10-23