Conference 2018 – Programme
| 8.30 | Registration |
|---|---|
| 9.00 | Opening Session: Welcome address |
| 9.30 | The TD1306 COST Action PEERE: vision, achievements and prospects (Flaminio Squazzoni, University of Brescia) |
| 9.45 | Hans-Dieter Daniel (ETH & University of Zurich): Peer review and beyond: Randomisation at the margin in the selection of research grant proposal |
| 10.30 | Coffee break |
| Session 1 – Chair: Flaminio Squazzoni (University of Brescia) | |
| 11.00 | Practicing peer review (Helene Schiffbanker, Joanneum Research, Marita Haas, Vienna University of Technology) |
| 11.20 | Cognitive distance and gender bias in peer review (Ulf Sandström, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, & Peter Van Den Besselaar, Vrije University Amsterdam) |
| 11.40 | ERC grants and peer review: Publication output of successful starting and advanced grants (David Pina, Research Executive Agency, Lana Bosnjak, Ivan Buljan, University of Split School of Medicine, Francisco Grimaldo, University of Valencia, & Ana Marušić, University of Split School of Medicine) |
| 12.00 | Does institutional proximity affects grant application success? (Charlie Mom & Peter Van Den Besselaar, Vrije University Amsterdam) |
| 12.20 | Epistemic diversity and editor decisions: A statistical Matthew effect (Remco Heesen, University of Cambridge, & Jan-WIlliem Romeijn, Groningen University) |
| 12.40 | Is my publication peer reviewed? A comparison of top-down and bottom-up identification of peer review in the framework of the Finnish and Flemish performance-based research funding systems (Janne Pölönen, Federation of Finnish Learned Societies, Tim Engels, Raf Guns & Frederik Verleysen, University of Antwerp) |
| 13.00 | Lunch |
| Session 2: Chair: Ana Marušić (University of Split School of Medicine) | |
| 14.00 | Research on peer review- in search of a theory (Martin Reinhart, Humboldt-University Berlin, & Cornelia Schendzielorz, German Center for Higher Education Research and Science Studies) |
| 14.20 | Pubpeer: vigilante science, journal club or alarm raiser? The controversies over anonymity in post-publication peer review (Didier Torny, CNRS) |
| 14.40 | The changing forms and expectations of peer review (Serge Horbach & Willem Halffman, Radboud University) |
| 15.00 | The social structure of consensus in scientific review (Misha Teplitskiy, Harvard University, Daniel Acuna, Syracuse University, Aïda Elamrani-Raoult, Ecole Normale Supérieure, Konrad Kording, University of Pennsylvania, & James Evans, University of Chicago) |
| 15.20 | Textual analysis of retraction notices (Judit Bar-Ilan, Bar-Ilan University, & Gali Halevi, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai) |
| 15.40 | Modelling the effects of the news value and the file drawer problem on the publication bias in meta analyses (Georg Müller, University of Fribourg) |
| 16.00 | Coffee break |
| Session 3: Chair: Stephen Cowley (University of Southern Denmark) | |
| 16.30 | How do journals construct peer review? An analysis of reviewers guidelines in the field of management (Marco Seeber, Ghent University) |
| 16.50 | Half a century of analysis of instructions to authors: preliminary results of a systematic review and a meta-analysis (Mario Malicki, University of Split School of Medicine, Ana Jeroncic, Ijsband Jan Aalbersberg, Elsevier, Lex Bouter, VU University Medical Center Amsterdam, & Gerben Ter Riet, University of Amsterdam) |
| 17.10 | A scoping review on actions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research (David Blanco, Barcelona Tech, Jamie Kirkham, University of Liverpool, Isabelle Boutron, Paris Descartes University, & Erik Cobo, Barcelona Tech) |
| 17.30-18.15 | Poster pitch session |
| 18.30-20.00 | Poster session, drinks and food |
| List of posters Estimation of peer-review efficiency in scientific journals in relation to knowledge management by editors (Olgica Nedic, Ivana Drvenica, University of Belgrade, Marcel Ausloos, Grapes Belgium, & Aleksandar Dekanski, University of Belgrade) How mental workload affect the peer-review task (Luca Longo, University College Dublin, Olgica Nedic and Aleksandar Dekanski, University of Belgrade) A methodological systematic review on the tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports (Cecilia Superchi, José Antonio González, Erik Cobo, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Darko Hren, University of Split, & Isabelle Boutron, Paris Descartes University) Improving accuracy, increasing review quality, and reducing review times through inline annotation (William Gunn, Elsevier) Tweet review: a network study on tweets about peer review (Aliakbar Akbaritabar & Flaminio Squazzoni, University of Brescia) Network analysis of peer review literature based on derived networks (WoS) (Vladimir Batagelj, Anuska Ferligoj, University of Ljubljana, & Flaminio Squazzoni, University of Brescia) The involvement of the scientific committee of a conference on validation and review process improvement (António Pedro Costa, Ludomedia and Aveiro University, & Sónia Mendes, Ludomedia) A mixed methods examination of reviewer recruitment assessment criteria and workflow in the peer review process (Kalpana Shankar, Lai Ma & Pablo Lucas, UCD Dublin) Can blockchain improve peer review? (Joris Van Rossum, Digital Science) |
|
| 8.30 | Registration |
|---|---|
| 9.00 | Irene Hames (Independent advisor, UK): Ethical issues and transparency in peer review |
| 9.45 | Jennifer Richler (Nature): Editorial policy and peer review efforts at Nature journals |
| 10.30 | Coffee break |
| Session 4 – Chair: Mario Paolucci (CNR Rome) | |
| 11.00 | Ten simple rules to consider regarding open peer review (Birgit Schmidt, University of Göttingen, Tony Ross-Hellauer, Known-Center Austria, Xenia van Edig, Copernicus Publications, & Elizabeth Moylan, BMC) |
| 11.20 | The impact of publishing peer review reports: The Elsevier trial (Giangiacomo Bravo, Linnaeus University Vaxjo, Francisco Grimaldo, Emilia López, University of Valencia, Bahar Mehmani, Elsevier, & Flaminio Squazzoni, University of Brescia) |
| 11.40 | Innovation of peer review at Elsevier (Bahar Mehmani, Elsevier) |
| 12.00 | Reviewing peer reviewers: a ranking algorithm for referees (Federico Bianchi, University of Brescia, Francisco Grimaldo, University of Valencia, & Flaminio Squazzoni, University of Brescia) |
| 12.20 | Web-native peer review: Modeling a hybrid platform (Jonathan Tennant, Open Science MOOC, Tony Ross-Hellauer, Know Center Austria, Lisa Matthias, Open AIRE, Andy Byers, University of London, & Jonathan Dugan, Berkeley Institute for Data Science) |
| 12.40 | A decentralized publication system for open science using blockchain and IPFS (Antonio Tenorio-Fornés, Viktor Jacynycz, David Llop, Antonio A. Sánchez-Ruiz, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, & Samer Hassan, Harvard University & Universidad Complutense de Madrid) |
| 13.00 | Lunch |
| Session 5 – Chair: Didier Torny (CNRS Paris) | |
| 14.00 | Peer review descriptions in journals’ instructions to authors: A 2017 cross sectional study across all disciplines (Mario Malicki, University of Split School of Medicine, Ijsbrand Jan Aalbersberg, Elsevier, Lex Bouter, VU University Medical Center Amsterdam, & Gerben Ter Riet, University of Amsterdam) |
| 14.20 | The editor’s perspective on communication practices within the manuscript review process in biomedical journals: a qualitative study (Ketevan Glonti & Darko Hren, University of Split) |
| 14.40 | Is the quality of review reflected in editors’ and author’s satisfaction with peer review? A cross sectional study in 12 journals across four research fields (Shelly Pranic, Mario Malicki, Stjepan Marusic, University of Split School of Medicine, Bahar Mehmani, Elsevier & Ana Marusic, University of Split School of Medicine) |
| 15.00 | Quality of editorial processes and duration of the peer review process (Janine Huisman & Jeroen Smits, Radboud University) |
| 15.20 | Peer review of reviewers: The author’s perspective (Ivana Drvenica, University of Belgrade, Giangiacomo Bravo, Linnaeus University Vaxjo, Lucija Wejmelka, University of Zagreb, Aleksandar Dekanski, & Olgica Nédic, University of Belgrade) |
| 15.40 | Peer review under the miscroscope: Results of a user-centred survey (Edit Görögh, University of Göttingen, Tony Ross-Hellauer, Know Center Austria, Vilius Stanciauskas & Vilte Banalyte, PPMI, Lithuania) |
| 16.00 | Coffee break |
| Session 6 – Chair: Marco Seeber (Ghent University) | |
| 16.30 | Peer review recognition- a survey of preferences for recognition and rewards (Elizabeth Moylan, BMC, Celia Carver, freelancer, Astrid Pfenning, Springer, Lynn Brandon, Springer, Janet Slobodien, Springer, Sara Ho, BMC, & Thijs van Vlijmen, Taylor & Francis) |
| 16.50 | Motivations for reviewing manuscripts submitted to Elsevier journals (Mario Malicki, University of Split School of Medicine, Jadranka Stojanovski, University of Zadar/Ruđer Bošković Institute, & Bahar Mehmani, Elsevier) |
| 17.10 | Identification of Motivations for Peer Reviewers to Perform Pre-publication Review of Manuscripts: A Systematic Review (Mersiha Mahmić-Kaknjo, Zenica Cantonal Hospital, Mario Malički, Ana Utrobičić, University of Split School of Medicine, Dario Sambunjak, Catholic University of Croatia, & Ana Marušić, University of Split School of Medicine) |
| 17-30 | Panel “Editors facing the challenge of peer review in hypercompetitive science” (chair: Michael Willis, Wiley) : Leslie Gutman (Journal of Adolescence), Ana Marušić (Journal of Global Health), Elizabeth Moylan (BMC, Peer Review and Research Integrity), Flaminio Squazzoni (JASSS) |
| 18.30 | Closing |
| 20.00 | Gala Dinner |
| 8.30 | Registration |
|---|---|
| 9.15 | Isabelle Boutron (Paris Descartes University): Improving peer review via controlled experiments |
| 10.00 | Publishing while female. Are women held to higher standards? Evidence from peer review (Erin Hengel, University of Liverpool) |
| 10.30 | Coffee break |
| Session 7 – Chair: Virginia Dignum (Delft University) | |
| 11.00 | The effect of homophily of reviewers on the arbitrariness of peer review (Aliaksandr Birukou, Springer-Verlag, & Elise Brezis, Bar-Ilan University) |
| 11.20 | Improving the peer review process with model-based estimates of inter-rater reliability and detection of rating bias: from teacher selection to journal submissions and grant applications (Patricia Martinkova, Czech Academy of Science, Dan Goldhaber, Elena Erosheva & Carole J. Lee, University of Washington at Seattle) |
| 11.40 | Using linguistic analysis of peer review reports to study panel processes (Peter Van Den Besselaar, Vrije University Amsterdam, Ulf Sandstrom, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, & Helene Schiffbaenker, Joanneum Research) |
| 12.00 | Transformation of ex-ante evaluation in academic project funding: The case of PRIN (Emanuela Reale & Antonio Zinilli, CNR Rome) |
| 12.20 | Editorial practices that motivate reviewers: An agent-based model (Simone Righi, University of Bologna, & Karoly Takacs, Hungarian Academy of Science) |
| 12.40 | Improbable fairness: reviewing under the lenses of impact factor (Davide Secchi & Stephen Cowley, University of Southern Denmark) |
| 13.00 | Lunch |
| Session 8 – Chair: Jadranka Stojanovski (University of Zadar/Ruđer Bošković Institute) | |
| 14.00 | The “invisible hand” of peer review: network effects on scientific collaboration (Pierpaolo Dondio, Dublin Institute of Technology, Niccolò Casnici, University of Brescia, Francisco Grimaldo, University of Valencia, & Flaminio Squazzoni, University of Brescia) |
| 14.20 | Qualitative synthesis of pre-publication peer review of manuscript (Mario Malicki, University of Split School of Medicine, Kalpana Shankar, University College Dublin, Ana Marušić, University of Split School of Medicine, & Christine Cullen, University College Dublin) |
| 14.40 | Are seasonal effects found in paper submission flow to peer review journals? Are subsequent rejections depending on the submission month? A case study comparing a specialized and a general audience journal (Marcel Ausloos, Grapes Belgium, Olgica Nedic & Aleksandar Dekanski, University of Belgrade) |
| 15.00 | Closing cerimony (Best paper and best poster awards) |
| 15.30 | Coffee break |
| 16.00-17.00 | TD1306 COST Action Management Committee Meeting (restricted to COST Action MC members) |