Open Review of Science Publications

Publication of scientific research in print is traditionally peer reviewed anonymously prior to publication, which is a time-tested process but has serious limitations. The advent of the Internet permits postpublication open review online after minimal review by the editors or the author-selected reviewers, which can be quick, that permits the authors to revise the content. Most meritorious articles published online may be selected for publication in print as annual or biennial collections.     

Open review of science publications

Publication of scientific research in print is traditionally peer reviewed anonymously prior to publication, which is a time-tested process but has serious limitations. The advent of the Internet permits postpublication open review online after minimal review by the editors or the author-selected reviewers, which can be quick, that permits the authors to revise the content. Most meritorious articles published online may be selected for publication in print as annual or biennial collections.     

Validation of the CoRE Questionnaire for a Medical Journal Peer Review

If a peer review instrument asks concrete questions (defined as items that can only generate disagreement if reviewers have different degrees of expertise), then questionnaires could become more meaningful in terms of resolving subjectivity thus leading to more reviewer agreement. A concrete item questionnaire with well-chosen questions can also help resolve disagreement when reviewers have the same level of expertise. We have recently created the core-item reviewer evaluation (CoRE) questionnaire for which decision-threshold score levels have been created, but which have not been validated. This prospective validation of these thresholds for the CoRE questionnaire demonstrated strong agreement between reviewer recommendations and their reported score levels when tested prospectively at Clinical Medicine and Research. We conclude that using the CoRE questionnaire will help reduce peer reviewer disagreement. More importantly, when reviewer expertise varies, editors can more easily detect this and decide which opinion reflects the greater expertise.     

Problems with Traditional Science Publishing and Finding a Wider Niche for Post-Publication Peer Review

Science affects multiple basic sectors of society. Therefore, the findings made in science impact what takes place at a commercial level. More specifically, errors in the literature, incorrect findings, fraudulent data, poorly written scientific reports, or studies that cannot be reproduced not only serve as a burden on tax-payers’ money, but they also serve to diminish public trust in science and its findings. Therefore, there is every need to fortify the validity of data that exists in the science literature, not only to build trust among peers, and to sustain that trust, but to reestablish trust in the public and private academic sectors that are witnessing a veritable battle-ground in the world of science publishing, in some ways spurred by the rapid evolution of the open access (OA) movement. Even though many science journals, traditional and OA, claim to be peer reviewed, the truth is that different levels of peer review occur, and in some cases no, insufficient, or pseudo-peer review takes place. This ultimately leads to the erosion of quality and importance of science, allowing essentially anything to become published, provided that an outlet can be found. In some cases, predatory OA journals serve this purpose, allowing papers to be published, often without any peer review or quality control. In the light of an explosion of such cases in predatory OA publishing, and in severe inefficiencies and possible bias in the peer review of even respectable science journals, as evidenced by the increasing attention given to retractions, there is an urgent need to reform the way in which authors, editors, and publishers conduct the first line of quality control, the peer review. One way to address the problem is through post-publication peer review (PPPR), an efficient complement to traditional peer-review that allows for the continuous improvement and strengthening of the quality of science publishing. PPPR may also serve as a way to renew trust in scientific findings by correcting the literature. This article explores what is broadly being said about PPPR in the literature, so as to establish awareness and a possible first-tier prototype for the sciences for which such a system is undeveloped or weak.     

Two facets of peer review and the proper role of study sections

The current National Institutes of Health study section system is under increasing criticism due to tight budgets and decreased levels of perceived competence. There is also an overemphasis on written critiques from the study section by unsuccessful applicants. It is argued that this arises from confusion between two different purposes of peer review. A system of universal participation in peer review by senior funded investigators is proposed to ameliorate these problems.     

Two Facets of Peer Review and the Proper Role of Study Sections

The current National Institutes of Health study section system is under increasing criticism due to tight budgets and decreased levels of perceived competence. There is also an overemphasis on written critiques from the study section by unsuccessful applicants. It is argued that this arises from confusion between two different purposes of peer review. A system of universal participation in peer review by senior funded investigators is proposed to ameliorate these problems.     

On the Nature and Role of Peer Review in Mathematics

For the past three decades, peer review practices have received much attention in the literature. But although this literature covers many research fields, only one previous systematic study has been devoted to the practice of peer review in mathematics, namely a study by Geist, Löwe, and Van Kerkhove from 2010. This lack of attention may be due to a view that peer review in mathematics is more reliable, and therefore less interesting as an object of study, than peer review in other fields. In fact, Geist, Löwe, and Van Kerkhove argue that peer review in mathematics is relatively reliable. At the same time, peer review in mathematics differs from peer review in most, if not all, other fields in that papers submitted to mathematical journals are usually only reviewed by a single referee. Furthermore, recent empirical studies indicate that the referees do not check the papers line by line. I argue that, in spite of this, mathematical practice in general and refereeing practices in particular are such that the common practice of mathematical journals of using just one referee is justified from the point of view of proof validity assessment. The argument is based on interviews I conducted with seven mathematicians.     

Social Policy Excellence – Peer Review or Metrics? Analyzing the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise in Social Work and Social Policy and Administration

A metrics‐based assessment can predict reasonably well the overall outcome of the Research Assessment Exercise 2008 for social work and social policy and administration in terms of research environment, but not in terms of research outputs. It is not possible to replicate peer review of the research outputs using existing data. It is sometimes argued that citation counts provide an alternative approach that might help research assessment, but it is one fraught with difficulties. Academics did not, in fact, routinely chose to submit their most cited work. At least in this subject, metrics are more suited as handmaiden to peer review than its replacement.     

Limited Nomination Reliability Using Single‐ and Multiple‐item Measures

This article examines a variety of reliability issues as related to limited nomination sociometric measures. Peer nomination data were collected from 77 sixth grade classrooms. Results showed that, although some single‐item peer nomination measures were relatively reliable, many single‐item peer nomination measures using limited nominations were quite unreliable. Overt aggression nomination items were the only set of single‐item measures where mean classroom reliability estimates were .75 or greater. Combining multiple items led to substantially better reliability, as combining the two least reliable items for a category into a single measure made the composite more reliable than the most reliable single measure. Having more nominators in the sample also increased reliability. The limited nomination items overall tended to be less reliable than similar unlimited nomination items from other studies. The authors end with recommendations for obtaining the most reliable peer nomination data possible from a study.     

Information-seeking during acquaintanceship: Effects of level of social understanding and personal relevance

Two studies examined how individual differences in social understanding influence children's information-seeking orientations during an initial meeting with a peer, in which they do or do not anticipate future interaction. Study 1 involved a relatively controlled, laboratory setting in which 7-9 year old children were presented a list of questions from which to choose what to ask the peer. The findings indicate that children who view a person's behavior in terms of stable dispositional characteristics (high SDC), express greater interest in gathering trait-related information about an unfamiliar peer than children who do not perceive people in terms of stable traits (low SDC), but only when they expect to play games with that peer in a future interaction. Study 2 involved a more naturalistic observation of the actual questions 7-9 year old children ask during an initial meeting with an unfamiliar peer. The findings showed that high SDC children asked more questions of the peer when they expected interaction than when they did not, whereas low SDC children did not differ significantly across conditions. Taken together, the two studies indicate that the future, predictability orientation of high SDC children leads to a more extensive information search about a peer when they expect interaction with that peer involving instrumental choices.     

Pathways between Parent–Child Interactions and Peer Acceptance: The Role of Children's Social Information Processing

This study examined the links among parents' interaction styles, their children's social information processing, and peer acceptance. Fourth‐grade children (N = 159) and their parents were observed during family discussions. One year later peer acceptance and children's information processing choices (goals, strategies, and attributions) in response to social dilemmas involving their parents and peers were assessed. Fathers' interaction styles with their children predicted both girls' and boys' information processing in regard to their fathers and peers, which, in turn, were related to peer acceptance. Mothers' interactive styles with their children predicted children's social information processing in regard to parents and peers and peer acceptance in similar ways, but only for girls. This study provided evidence that parent–child interaction is linked to children's information processing concerning their relationships with parents and peers and in turn with children being liked by peers. The implications of a social information processing approach for understanding family–peer links are emphasized.     

SOURCES OF INFORMATION ABOUT HIV/AIDS,TRUST OF SOURCES AND PERCEIVED RISK OF INFECTION

The relationship between sources of information about AIDS/HIV, trust of the sources, how informed about AIDS people thought they were, and perceived risk to self and others were examined using three samples. One included young heterosexual students (113 females and 91 males), while the others included slightly older heterosexuals (74 females and 73 males) and homosexuals (82 males) from the general community. Homosexual men were the only group who trusted the same sources from which they received the most information (eg gay publications and AIDS organisations). Heterosexuals trusted expert sources the most, but the students received most information from magazines aimed at their peer groups and the heterosexuals in the community sample received most information from the print media. For the students, perceived personal risk was influenced most by perceived risk to male friends and people with the same sexual practices, whereas for the community samples it was influenced most by perceived risk to people with the same practices. The results suggest a strong peer influence on perceptions of personal risk of HIV infection.     

Uncovering peer effects mechanisms with weight outcomes using spatial econometrics

Research about how peers influence weight outcomes among adolescents has yielded mixed findings. This paper seeks to not only estimate these peer effects, but also to distinguish between two mechanisms: social multiplier effects and social norm effects. After estimating an augmented spatial autoregressive model using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health Survey, this study finds significant peer interactions in body mass index, which can be explained by both mechanisms of peer influence; the social norm effect is much larger than the social multiplier effect. The estimated peer effects for overweight and obesity statuses suggest that peer effects are important for overweight status but not for obesity status, and peer influence for overweight status appears to operate solely through social multiplier effect. These findings provide important information for the design of obesity-prevention interventions in schools.     

Children's Differentiation Between Ingratiation and Self-Promotion

Previous research has demonstrated that 10-year-olds can provide interpersonal explanations for certain self-presentational tactics, but detailed information about the development of their understanding of these tactics is lacking. This research investigated children's understanding of the processes involved in ingratiation (used to indicate likeability) and self-promotion (used to indicate competence). In the first study, with a sample of 60 children aged six to 11 years, children saw ingratiation as leading to more positive social evaluation than self-promotion, which was seen as having a more concrete, instrumental function. Additionally, children's differentiation between ingratiation and self-promotion was correlated with their level of peer preference, as determined through sociometric nominations, particularly for boys. In a second study, with a sample of 63 children aged six to 11 years, it was found that audience type (peer vs. adult) was related to children's understanding of the self-presentational tactics: children offered more social evaluation justifications for a self-promotion tactic when the audience was a peer rather than an adult. Results are discussed with reference to emerging insights into the links between peer relations and social cognition.     

A Short-Form Scale to Measure Peer Relations Dysfunction

This paper presents validation testing results of a short-form scale designed to measure the degree or intensity of problems in peer relationships as seen and reported by the respondent. After reporting the psychometric characteristics of the scale, the authors present data to show how use of the scale might enhance a therapist's accuracy of assessment of peer relation problems. Further, a "clinical cutting score" is suggested which can help a therapist determine whether a peer problem is clinically significant.     

Strategies for the Study of Individual Development within Naturally-Existing Peer Groups*

The investigation of peer influences on children's development in natural settings rests squarely on appropriate methods to identify those individuals who are influential for a given child. Traditional methods of sociometric ratings or assessments of friendship choices are not intended to identify reciprocal influences in children's peer groups of social interrelationships. In the study of networks within sociology, researchers have focused on the structural properties of children's networks, instead of the psychologically meaningful characteristics of the children who comprise a target child's network. To complement these strategies, a method is presented that can reliably identify those individuals who constitute children's natural peer groups in a setting. This information is used to form composite maps that represent the psychological peer context of a given child. Strategies are outlined for analyzing processes of group selection and socialization among developing individuals and their changing peer contexts.     

交友之道：青少年同伴关系的影响因素研究

同伴关系对青少年的健康成长至关重要。青少年同伴关系的形成以及家庭社会经济地位在这一过程中所起的作用,对于理解教育不平等和代际流动都有重要意义,但既有的研究发现并不一致。本文从社会分层视角出发,检验了家庭社会经济地位对青少年同伴接纳度的影响,并尝试探究其中介机制。研究发现,家庭社会经济地位和个人层面的积极特性(如较高的学业成绩、自我效能感、有体育爱好)分别对青少年的同伴接纳度产生独立的正向影响。其中,非认知能力和文体爱好并非家庭社会经济地位影响青少年同伴接纳度的中介机制,只有认知能力起到微弱的中介作用,即家庭社会经济地位的部分效应通过认知能力作用于同伴接纳度。