FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1564574514> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1564574514 endingPage "308" @default.
• W1564574514 startingPage "307" @default.
• W1564574514 abstract "Quantifying and attributing credit for the production of new knowledge is an increasingly pervasive aspect of scientific culture (Tscharntke et al. 2007; Fischer et al. 2012). Individual researchers are under sustained pressure from research institutions to continually increase the number of peer-reviewed scientific publications they produce to justify their professional affiliation and potential to source future research funding. Such pressure to intensify research output has stimulated debate over the relative importance of the quantity and quality of new knowledge in scientific performance (Donaldson & Cooke 2014). Additionally, it encourages behaviors in researchers that are increasingly driven by a perceived need to compete against peers to sustain and justify individual careers (Tedesco 2011; Halme et al. 2012; Kaushal & Jeschke 2013). One key aspect of the production of new knowledge that can be overlooked is the contribution of the reviewer. Peer review is both an essential and beneficial aspect of publishing scientific research. Reviewers assist journal editors by critiquing manuscripts submitted for publishing, offering suggestions to authors for improvement and identifying flaws in the scope, design, or interpretation of new research (DeVries et al. 2009). In doing so, reviewers offer new ideas regarding a manuscript that improve the scope, logic, and content of a published paper (Bourne & Korngreen 2006). Peer review is designed to improve the quality of individual papers published and therefore contributes to the production of scientific knowledge and evidence (Bourne & Korngreen 2006). However, the function of reviewers in supporting the decisions of editors is shifting, with reviewers increasingly acting as gatekeepers in the process of considering manuscripts for publication (Statzner & Resh 2010). This, in combination with the long-term decline in the number of available reviewers (Kaushal & Jeschke 2013), means that the workload for remaining reviewers is increasing, which can limit their own research output as scientists. Despite the contribution of reviewers to the production of new scientific knowledge, their input is both inadequately and inconsistently acknowledged. This occurs at 2 levels—the contribution of intellectual input to an individual paper and the contribution to the production of science in general. In some cases, a reviewer's contribution might even be considered greater than that of some contributing authors, who, for example, may have provided editorial input only (Tedesco 2011). Detailed referee appraisals can be thousands of words in length produced over days of often unpaid or nonwork time (Campos-Arceiz et al. 2013), yet such effort is uncredited; despite the necessity of peer review to the production of science, such effort is not considered of value by research institutions in measures of scientific performance. [Correction added after online publication on November 11, 2014: Repeated text deleted.] Formally crediting the contribution of reviewers, following standard criteria, may be one solution to this problem. First, the contribution of a reviewer to a published paper should always be acknowledged by authors. Second, if a reviewer signs their review, their identity should not be withheld from authors because this denies authors the option to acknowledge the reviewer by name. Third, incorporating a metric that accounts for the volume of manuscripts reviewed and the quality of those reviews (Kaushal & Jeschke 2013) into measures of research performance would also acknowledge and could reward the essential role of refereeing in the production of new science. Such acknowledgement is important regardless of academia's push to increasingly assess performance on quantity or of whether the focus shifts toward assessing overall scientific influence (Donaldson & Cooke 2014). Formally acknowledging the contribution of reviewers has the potential to benefit authors, reviewers, and editors. For authors and editors, the quality of reviews could be expected to be higher if the time taken to complete a thorough and constructive appraisal is recognized. Editors would have a reduced workload in seeking potential referees if individuals were motivated to be part of this essential aspect of knowledge generation (Wardle 2012). Finally, scientists taking on reviewing roles would invest time in producing detailed reviews, knowing that their efforts would be valued at an individual and professional level. Such changes would not only improve the quality of new scientific knowledge, but would also make the production and distribution of this knowledge more efficient. The authors thank E. Main for comments that improved the clarity of our manuscript." @default.
• W1564574514 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1564574514 creator A5017137554 @default.
• W1564574514 creator A5028289747 @default.
• W1564574514 creator A5038566718 @default.
• W1564574514 date "2014-11-11" @default.
• W1564574514 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W1564574514 title "Improving science through improved acknowledgment of reviewers" @default.
• W1564574514 cites W1865489763 @default.
• W1564574514 cites W1942325726 @default.
• W1564574514 cites W2001222687 @default.
• W1564574514 cites W2027368834 @default.
• W1564574514 cites W2084570353 @default.
• W1564574514 cites W2129277408 @default.
• W1564574514 cites W2137892569 @default.
• W1564574514 cites W2143765741 @default.
• W1564574514 cites W2146648274 @default.
• W1564574514 cites W2159520166 @default.
• W1564574514 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12418" @default.
• W1564574514 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25388564" @default.
• W1564574514 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W1564574514 type Work @default.
• W1564574514 sameAs 1564574514 @default.
• W1564574514 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1564574514 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1564574514 hasAuthorship W1564574514A5017137554 @default.
• W1564574514 hasAuthorship W1564574514A5028289747 @default.
• W1564574514 hasAuthorship W1564574514A5038566718 @default.
• W1564574514 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W1564574514 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W1564574514 hasConcept C138368954 @default.
• W1564574514 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W1564574514 hasConcept C14036430 @default.
• W1564574514 hasConcept C151719136 @default.
• W1564574514 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W1564574514 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1564574514 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W1564574514 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1564574514 hasConcept C2778012447 @default.
• W1564574514 hasConcept C2779530757 @default.
• W1564574514 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W1564574514 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1564574514 hasConcept C527412718 @default.
• W1564574514 hasConcept C55587333 @default.
• W1564574514 hasConcept C56739046 @default.
• W1564574514 hasConcept C78458016 @default.
• W1564574514 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W1564574514 hasConceptScore W1564574514C111472728 @default.
• W1564574514 hasConceptScore W1564574514C127413603 @default.
• W1564574514 hasConceptScore W1564574514C138368954 @default.
• W1564574514 hasConceptScore W1564574514C138885662 @default.
• W1564574514 hasConceptScore W1564574514C14036430 @default.
• W1564574514 hasConceptScore W1564574514C151719136 @default.
• W1564574514 hasConceptScore W1564574514C15744967 @default.
• W1564574514 hasConceptScore W1564574514C17744445 @default.
• W1564574514 hasConceptScore W1564574514C199360897 @default.
• W1564574514 hasConceptScore W1564574514C199539241 @default.
• W1564574514 hasConceptScore W1564574514C2778012447 @default.
• W1564574514 hasConceptScore W1564574514C2779530757 @default.
• W1564574514 hasConceptScore W1564574514C39549134 @default.
• W1564574514 hasConceptScore W1564574514C41008148 @default.
• W1564574514 hasConceptScore W1564574514C527412718 @default.
• W1564574514 hasConceptScore W1564574514C55587333 @default.
• W1564574514 hasConceptScore W1564574514C56739046 @default.
• W1564574514 hasConceptScore W1564574514C78458016 @default.
• W1564574514 hasConceptScore W1564574514C86803240 @default.
• W1564574514 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W1564574514 hasLocation W15645745141 @default.
• W1564574514 hasLocation W15645745142 @default.
• W1564574514 hasLocation W15645745143 @default.
• W1564574514 hasOpenAccess W1564574514 @default.
• W1564574514 hasPrimaryLocation W15645745141 @default.
• W1564574514 hasRelatedWork W122017014 @default.
• W1564574514 hasRelatedWork W2074473210 @default.
• W1564574514 hasRelatedWork W2504795326 @default.
• W1564574514 hasRelatedWork W2522051540 @default.
• W1564574514 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W1564574514 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W1564574514 hasRelatedWork W2920125405 @default.
• W1564574514 hasRelatedWork W3126693915 @default.
• W1564574514 hasRelatedWork W3200259506 @default.
• W1564574514 hasRelatedWork W4256565277 @default.
• W1564574514 hasVolume "29" @default.
• W1564574514 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1564574514 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1564574514 magId "1564574514" @default.
• W1564574514 workType "article" @default.