Search

Abstract Background There are a variety of costs associated with publication of scientific findings. The purpose of this work was to estimate the cost of peer review in scientific publishing per reviewer, per year and for the entire scientific community. Methods Internet-based self-report, cross-sectional survey, live between June 28, 2021 and August 2, 2021 was used. Participants were recruited via snowball sampling. No restrictions were placed on geographic location or field of study. Respondents who were asked to act as a peer-reviewer for at least one manuscript submitted to a scientific journal in 2020 were eligible. The primary outcome measure was the cost of peer review per person, per year (calculated as wage-cost x number of initial reviews and number of re-reviews per year). The secondary outcome was the cost of peer review globally (calculated as the number of peer-reviewed papers in Scopus x median wage-cost of initial review and re-review). Results A total of 354 participants completed at least one question of the survey, and information necessary to calculate the cost of peer-review was available for 308 participants from 33 countries (44% from Canada). The cost of peer review was estimated at $US1,272 per person, per year ($US1,015 for initial review and $US256 for re-review), or US$1.1–1.7 billion for the scientific community per year. The global cost of peer-review was estimated at US$6 billion in 2020 when relying on the Dimensions database and taking into account reviewed-but-rejected manuscripts. Conclusions Peer review represents an important financial piece of scientific publishing. Our results may not represent all countries or fields of study, but are consistent with previous estimates and provide additional context from peer reviewers themselves. Researchers and scientists have long provided peer review as a contribution to the scientific community. Recognizing the importance of peer-review, institutions should acknowledge these costs in job descriptions, performance measurement, promotion packages, and funding applications. Journals should develop methods to compensate reviewers for their time and improve transparency while maintaining the integrity of the peer-review process.

In this article we study the particularities of editorial practice in contexts of confinement in Argentina through the systematization and analysis of five publications, already published or in the process of being published, which were formulated within the framework of pedagogical-political practices carried on by the Prisons Extension Program of the Philosophy and Literature Faculty of the University of Buenos Aires. These five cases will be addressed in order to observe what meanings guide the editorial processes through the marks imprinted on them by the specificity of the writing that summons them and the territory to which they belong. Publishing in the context of a pedagogical project developed by the university configures collective territories where writing and publications can display and carry plural voices, which are strengthened in that plurality forged in the heat of individual and collective subjectivation processes made possible by education and writing. Editorial practice is inseparably intertwined with actions aimed at defending rights, narrating lived experiences and building a collective history which are part of the desires and expectations regarding publication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There are a variety of costs associated with publication of scientific findings. The purpose of this work was to estimate the cost of peer review in scientific publishing per reviewer, per year and for the entire scientific community. Methods: Internet-based self-report, cross-sectional survey, live between June 28, 2021 and August 2, 2021 was used. Participants were recruited via snowball sampling. No restrictions were placed on geographic location or field of study. Respondents who were asked to act as a peer-reviewer for at least one manuscript submitted to a scientific journal in 2020 were eligible. The primary outcome measure was the cost of peer review per person, per year (calculated as wage-cost x number of initial reviews and number of re-reviews per year). The secondary outcome was the cost of peer review globally (calculated as the number of peer-reviewed papers in Scopus x median wage-cost of initial review and re-review). Results: A total of 354 participants completed at least one question of the survey, and information necessary to calculate the cost of peer-review was available for 308 participants from 33 countries (44% from Canada). The cost of peer review was estimated at $US1,272 per person, per year ($US1,015 for initial review and $US256 for re-review), or US$1.1–1.7 billion for the scientific community per year. The global cost of peer-review was estimated at US$6 billion in 2020 when relying on the Dimensions database and taking into account reviewed-but-rejected manuscripts. Conclusions: Peer review represents an important financial piece of scientific publishing. Our results may not represent all countries or fields of study, but are consistent with previous estimates and provide additional context from peer reviewers themselves. Researchers and scientists have long provided peer review as a contribution to the scientific community. Recognizing the importance of peer-review, institutions should acknowledge these costs in job descriptions, performance measurement, promotion packages, and funding applications. Journals should develop methods to compensate reviewers for their time and improve transparency while maintaining the integrity of the peer-review process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Resumo O presente artigo parte da análise das práticas e representações de publicadores que frequentam as feiras de arte impressa realizadas na cidade de São Paulo nos últimos anos para compreender os vetores sociotécnicos que organizam essas práticas e as materialidades dos objetos editoriais ali publicados e comercializados. Coloca-se, no centro da análise, a relação entre as tecnicidades (o códice, o papel e a impressão) mobilizadas por esses publicadores e certas concepções de passado, presente e futuro inscritas em seus investimentos individuais e coletivos, com destaque para a tensão entre o “retorno ao artesanal” e a pretensão de construir um futuro viável para a publicação. Conclui-se que as novas formas de fetichização do livro impresso estão condicionadas tanto pelas evoluções técnicas proporcionadas pelas tecnologias digitais como pela negação programática do livro convencional, identificado com o mercado editorial mainstream.

Copyright of Sociedade e Estado is the property of Sociedade e Estado and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This review asks what a history of paper and a study of metamedia tell us about the paper v. digital debate reported in the media taking place within the trade book publishing industry just as figures reported in 2016 show that eBook sales are slowing and print is showing a very tiny recovery. Müller’s book shows how paper was the ‘old’ digital, transformative, mythical even, whereas the rise of metamedial literature in Starre’s book reflected a rise in interest in the material aspects of book objects (and control of) by authors as the vanilla incarnation of digital – the eBook – disappointed. As the mixed ecology of print and digital looks set to continue as both books argue, this review asks whether industry concentration and consolidation is becoming the lead story not ever increasing levels of digital activity.White Magic: The Age of Paper*, Lothar Müller, Cambridge: Polity, 2015, ISBN: 978-0-7456-7253-3 Metamedia: American Book Fictions and Literary Print Culture after Digitization, Alexander Starre, Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 2015, ISBN: 978-1-60938-359-6 *First published in German in 2012 as Weiße Magie: Die Epoche des Papiers, München, Carl Hanser Verlag

Having generated data, an important part of the research process is to effectively communicate your findings to the scientific community. Traditional routes for doing this include publishing an abstract, presenting a poster, giving an oral presentation or publishing a peer-reviewed original research paper. Understanding your audience and delivering a clear message are key elements for effective communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scholarly research faces threats to its sustainability on multiple domains (access, incentives, reproducibility, inclusivity). We argue that “after-the-fact” research papers do not help and actually cause some of these threats because the chronology of the research cycle is lost in a research paper. We propose to give up the academic paper and propose a digitally native “as-you-go” alternative. In this design, modules of research outputs are communicated along the way and are directly linked to each other to form a network of outputs that can facilitate research evaluation. This embeds chronology in the design of scholarly communication and facilitates the recognition of more diverse outputs that go beyond the paper (e.g., code, materials). Moreover, using network analysis to investigate the relations between linked outputs could help align evaluation tools with evaluation questions. We illustrate how such a modular “as-you-go” design of scholarly communication could be structured and how network indicators could be computed to assist in the evaluation process, with specific use cases for funders, universities, and individual researchers.

Although an important number of studies support the view of self-control as a limited resource, recent studies pointed out that self-control capacity does not diminish invariably. Success expectancies and willpower beliefs might play an important role in this context. This study tested a mediation model, considering success expectancies in consecutive tasks requiring self-control as a mediator of the relationship between willpower beliefs and performance in these kind of tasks. An experiment involving 163 participants, adolescents, (88 females and 75 males, age range: 14-18 years old) was conducted. Participants were randomized in two experimental groups (manipulated to believe willpower is limited or unlimited) and a control group. Afterwards, participants reported their performance expectancies for two following tasks requiring self-control and solved it (task 1 - stimuli detection; task 2 - vicarious depletion by transposing in a character's struggling with temptation shoes). At the end, they received a menu and ordered the meal, but also estimated the maximum patience until its arrival, as if they were still in the story character's shoes (the dependent variables). Lastly, they completed the Romanian version of the General Self-Efficacy Scale. The results supported the mediation model but also indicated the possibility that willpower beliefs might affect self-control capacity through other mechanisms. The perception of the energy consumed proved to be particularly influenced by the belief that willpower is limited. The mechanism by which limited and unlimited willpower beliefs influence self-control capacity after consecutive tasks involving self-control needs more investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]