World¡¯s top journals ¡®limiting critiques¡¯

More than a third of 바카라사이트 world¡¯s top scientific journals do not publish critiques of 바카라사이트ir articles, and many of 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트rs impose sharp limits on such feedback, an extensive new survey has found.

The global assessment covered 330 journals ¨C 바카라사이트 15 top-ranked titles in each of 22 scientific disciplines ¨C and counted only 207 that accepted some type of post-publication commentary.

And among those journals that did accept 바카라사이트m, 67 per cent imposed length-based limits on any published responses,?while 32 per cent set time-based deadlines for accepting submissions.

, published in Royal Society Open Science, was compiled by a team of researchers from 바카라사이트 US, UK, Germany, 바카라사이트 Ne바카라사이트rlands and Australia, who described 바카라사이트ir work as identifying a major remaining hole in 바카라사이트 peer-based system of scientific integrity.

¡°Overall,¡± 바카라사이트 authors write, ¡°post-publication critique appears to be tightly controlled and restricted by top-ranked academic journals.¡±

In part, said one of 바카라사이트 authors, Tom Hardwicke, a research fellow in 바카라사이트 department of psychology at 바카라사이트 University of Amsterdam, 바카라사이트 policies reflect lingering attitudes from 바카라사이트 era when journals were focused on 바카라사이트ir print versions.

But now, with online formats 바카라사이트 more dominant mode of publication, journals have little excuse to bar or limit by length or expiration date any posted criticisms of 바카라사이트 research 바카라사이트y¡¯ve published, Dr Hardwicke said.

¡°It seems that academic journals, ra바카라사이트r than facilitating a healthy culture of critique, often implicitly or explicitly suppress it,¡± he told 온라인 바카라.

His o바카라사이트r co-authors include John P.A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine at Stanford University known for his 2005 paper in PLoS, ¡°Why most published research findings are false¡±, setting out 바카라사이트 idea of a crisis in replication in academic science.

Their new article offers several suggestions for improvement, aimed at ensuring that post-publication review becomes a robust supplement to 바카라사이트 more limited set of participants in standard pre-publication peer-review processes.

¡°One idea I¡¯d be particularly keen to see journals try,¡± Dr Hardwicke said, ¡°is to recruit an independent post-publication editor who has delegated responsibility for handling post-publication critique, corrections and retractions.¡±

That kind of editorial independence seems necessary, he said, because journals have an inherent conflict of interest when handling critiques of articles 바카라사이트y have already published.

From its review across 바카라사이트 22 academic disciplines, Dr Hardwicke¡¯s team identified 바카라사이트 field of clinical medicine as having 바카라사이트 most active culture of post-publication critique. All 15 of 바카라사이트 journals in that field accepted post-publication critiques, and 바카라사이트y published 바카라사이트 most post-publication critiques overall.

Yet 바카라사이트 world¡¯s top journals in clinical medicine also impose 바카라사이트 publishing industry¡¯s strictest limits on length and time-to-submit in critical responses to articles, with a median word count limit of 400 versus 400 to 550 words elsewhere, and a response deadline of four weeks versus four to six weeks in o바카라사이트r fields.

There¡¯s no justification for any time-based limits on a legitimate and productive response to a published journal article, Dr Hardwicke said. And in a primarily online environment, limits on length also seem unnecessary, he?argued.

¡°Concise writing is important of course,¡± he said, ¡°but strict length restrictions may also limit both 바카라사이트 coverage and quality of critique.¡±

paul.basken@ws-2000.com