Learning from open source software projects to improve scientific review

Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience

Volumn , Issue MARCH 2012, 2012, Pages

  Ghosh, Satrajit S ^a   Klein, Arno ^b   Avants, Brian ^c   Jarrod Millman, K ^d  

^a MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b NEW YORK STATE PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Code review systems; Distributed peer review; Open source software development; Post publication peer review; Reputation assessment; Review quality

Indexed keywords

AREA OF INTEREST; COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION; OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT; OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE PROJECTS; OPEN-SOURCE SOFTWARES; PEER REVIEW; PEER-REVIEW PROCESS; PRIMARY MECHANISM; REPUTATION ASSESSMENT; REVIEW PROCESS; REVIEW QUALITY; SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY; SCIENTIFIC RESULTS;

COMPUTER SOFTWARE; PUBLISHING; SOCIAL SCIENCES COMPUTING;

QUALITY CONTROL;

ARTICLE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; LEARNING; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY; SOCIAL NETWORK; STANDARDIZATION; VALIDITY;

EID: 84859024378     PISSN: 16625188     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00018     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Bollen, J., Van de Sompel, H., Hagberg, A., and Chute, R. (2009). A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures. PLoS ONE, 4(6):e6022.
2. Butler, D. (2005). Electronic notebooks: A new leaf. Nature, 436(7047):20-21.
3. Chang, G., Roth, C. B., Reyes, C. L., Pornillos, O., Chen, Y.-J., and Chen, A. P. (2006). Retraction. Science, 314(5807):1875.
4. Drummond, C. (2009). Replicability is not reproducibility: Nor is it good science. In Proceedings of the Evaluation Methods for Machine Learning Workshop at the 26th ICML. Citeseer.
5. Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes to science: a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 122(3159):108-11.
6. Hirsch, J. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46):16569.
7. Ioannidis, J. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8):e124.
8. Leubsdorf Jr, C (2011) Annotum: An open-source authoring and publishing platform based on Word Press. Proceedings of the Journal Article Tag Suite Conference.
9. Peng, R. D. (2009). Reproducible research and Biostatistics. Biostat 10(3): 405-408.
10. Poschl, U. and Koop, T. (2008). Interactive open access publishing and collaborative peer review for improved scientific communication and quality assurance. Information Services and Use, 28(2):105-107.
11. Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99(4):178.
12. Víegas, F., Wattenberg, M., and Dave, K. (2004). Studying cooperation and conflict between authors with history flow visualizations. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pages 575-582. ACM.