Rethinking the peer review process
Pages 77 - 80
Abstract
Computer-support for peer review has been mostly limited to facilitating traditional reviewing processes and remedying scalability issues. My research aims to inform the design of future scientific peer review processes and the systems that support them by analyzing current practices in peer review, suggesting guidelines for the design of future peer-review processes and the systems that support them, and exploring the design space of interfaces to support the primary tasks in the peer review process (e.g. opinion measurement interfaces).
References
[1]
Benos, D.J., Bashari, E., Chaves, J.M., et al. The ups and downs of peer review. Advances in Physiology Education 31, 2 (2007), 145--152.
[2]
Bingham, C.M, Higgins, G., Coleman, R., and Van Der Weyden, M.B. The Medical Journal of Australia internet peer-review study. The Lancet 352, 9126 (1998), 441--445.
[3]
Brown, P. and Levinson, S.C. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press, 1987.
[4]
Dourish, P. and Anderson, K. Collective Information Practice: Exploring Privacy and Security as Social and Cultural Phenomena. HCI 21, 3 (2006), 319--342.
[5]
Golbeck, J. Trust on the world wide web: a survey. Found. Trends Web Sci. 1, 2 (2006), 131--197.
[6]
Langfeldt, L. The Decision-Making Constraints and Processes of Grant Peer Review, and Their Effects on the Review Outcome. Social Studies of Science 31, 6 (2001), 820--841.
[7]
LaPorte, R.E., Marler, E., Akazawa, S., et al. The death of biomedical journals. BMJ 310, 6991 (1995), 1387--1390.
[8]
Leventhal, G.S. What Should Be Done with Equity Theory? In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg and R. Willis, eds., Social Exchange. Springer, 1980, 27--55.
[9]
Nobarany, S., Oram, L., Rajendran, V.K., Chen, C.-H., McGrenere, J., and Munzner, T. The design space of opinion measurement interfaces: exploring recall support for rating and ranking. Proc. CHI 2012, ACM (2012), 2035--2044.
[10]
Tomlinson, B., Ross, J., Andre, P., et al. Massively distributed authorship of academic papers. Proc. ext. abs. CHI 2012, ACM (2012), 11--20.
[11]
Tyler, T.R. Psychological Perspectives on Legitimacy and Legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology 57, 1 (2006), 375--400.
Index Terms
- Rethinking the peer review process
Recommendations
Reputation management algorithms for DHT-based peer-to-peer environment
This paper addresses the problem of integration of reputation management mechanisms into data look-up and routing processes to cope with some specific security problems in peer-to-peer (P2P) networks based on Distributed Hash Tables (DHT). The goal is ...
Combining search and trust models in unstructured peer-to-peer networks
Effectiveness of Peer-to-Peer (P2P) systems highly depends on efficiency and scalability of their search algorithms. Moreover, managing trust is a key issue for wide acceptance of P2P computing. Surprisingly, the majority of the available trust systems ...
An OPNET simulation model for peer-to-peer networks
Peer-to-peer (P2P) traffic has increased rapidly over the past few years, with file sharing providing the main drive behind such traffic. Therefore, modeling P2P systems and studying their impact on the performance of the underlying network is a vital ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
February 2014
372 pages
ISBN:9781450325417
DOI:10.1145/2556420
- General Chairs:
- Susan Fussell,
- Wayne Lutters,
- Program Chairs:
- Meredith Ringel Morris,
- Madhu Reddy
Copyright © 2014 Owner/Author.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.
Sponsors
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 15 February 2014
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Short-paper
Conference
CSCW'14
Sponsor:
Acceptance Rates
CSCW Companion '14 Paper Acceptance Rate 88 of 497 submissions, 18%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 2,235 of 8,521 submissions, 26%
Upcoming Conference
CSCW '25
- Sponsor:
- sigchi
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 169Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)4
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 12 Nov 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in