Post on 29-Jan-2018
transcript
Research
Square
Manuscript Services for International
Researchers
• English Language Editing
• Translation
• Content Review (Pre Peer Review)
• Journal Recommendation
• Manuscript & Image Formatting
Independent Peer Review & Journal
Matching for All Researchers
For Benefit Company
What is the problem?
1.5 million scholarly articles published annually in 25,000 journals
Traditional Journal: Inefficient process for matching papers to journals
(Journal Loops)
Mega OA Journal: No indication of initial quality/reception indicator of an article
(The Big Heap)
“I need to find the highest impact journal fit
as soon as possible”
Author
I want to be
published here
But I know this paper
will likely be accepted
in this range
Researcher Pain
• It takes too long to get
published
• Every journal has its own
guidelines and review
processes
• System is opaque
• Frequent requests to
review but little incentive to
accept or review quickly
• Redundancies
Journal Challenges
Brand Names
Mid-Tier
The Rest
(New/Regional/Niche)
• Too Many Submissions
• Reviewer Fatigue
• Costly Administration Processes
• Lengthy time to decision due to volume
• Competing for best authors/papers
• Time to first decision
• Dealing with mega-OA journals as competition
• Finding Reviewers
• Need to promote the journals existence
• Getting found by authors – they need
submissions to exist
• Establishing a reputation
Connecting in a Smarter Way
Authors(submit)
Journals(alerts)
Double-Blinded Not Blinded
Reviewers(claim)
Supplements Journal Peer ReviewTraditional Peer Review
Independent Peer Review & Journal Match
Pre-Submission to Journal
Journal Process
Authors(submit)
Journals(alerts)
Reviewers(claim)
• Expect Journals to continue to perform peer review
• No charge to journals or publishers
STEPS
1. Journals setup preferences in Rubriq to receive alerts
2. Receive alerts and scan matched papers
3. Access full reviews and reviewer information
4. Connect with authors to indicate interest
One Week
The Process
Step 1Classification &
Manuscript Report
Review paper for ethical issues,
plagiarism check, conflict of interest,
disclosure statements, etc.
Step 2Reviewer Report
(R-score)
3 ReviewersScored against the standardized rubric
(R-score)
Step 3Journal
Recommendations
Recommend journals based on R-score,
manuscript profile, Rubriq journal
database, and journal preferences
Step 4(Optional)
Journal Matching
Authors can make their R-score reports
searchable by journals (alerts)
One Week
Author Submits
ReviewersClaim
Rubriq Team
Automated Journal & Authors
The Rubriq Scorecard Vision
By creating a standardized scoring instrument for
peer review, we propose to streamline the review
and publication process for the benefit of authors,
journal editors and reviewers while maintaining
the highest standards of quality
Overall Improvements
• Speeds up the entire publishing cycle
• Massive reduction of time, cost and energy to
perform scientific validation
• Provides a standard approach to peer review
that can be studied and improved over time
• Provides as high (if not higher) quality of review
than currently used by journals
What’s Next
• Community Feedback and Discussion
• Finalization of Scorecard and Weighting
Algorithm
– Next test group: Editors-in-Chief
• Formation of Cross-Industry Advisory Group
– Researchers, Managing Editors, Publishers
• Website Launch in September
TIME & COST OF PEER REVIEW
6 hrs
68 hrs
$3 to 4.5BThe annual costs of the time spent by editors and
reviewers of scholarly journal articles globally 1
221 days
1 Research Information Network. Activities, costs, and funding flows in the scholarly communications system (2008). Retrieved March 22, 2012, from http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/communicating-and-disseminating-research/activities-costs-and-funding-flows-scholarly-commu
2 Kravitz DJ and Baker CI (2011) Toward a new model of scientific publishing: discussion and a proposal. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 5:55. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2011.00055
Average time between first submission and acceptance,
including revisions (range 31-533 days) 2
Average time each reviewer spends reviewing a paper 2
Estimated time spend by authors on average on revisions
and resubmissions based on journal feedback during peer
review 2
PERCEPTIONS OF PEER REVIEW
69%of authors reported that on their most recent published paper,
it took up to 6 months for the paper to be accepted 1
69%of researchers thought that peer review was not transparent,
there wasn’t a standard, and they didn’t know what was
expected of them 1
69%of researchers are satisfied with the current system of peer
review 1
76% favor the double blind system of peer review 1
1 Sense about Science Peer Review Survey. (2009). Retrieved March 22, 2012, from http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/Peer_Review/Peer_Review_Survey_Final_3.pdf