Dimensions of trust in scholarly communication: Problematizing peer review in the aftermath of John Bohannon's “Sting” in science

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 68, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 450-467

  Haider, Jutta ^a   Åström, Fredrik ^b  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

REVIEWS;

CONCEPTUAL RELATIONS; DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT; DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES; ON-LINE MATERIALS; OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS; PERSONAL EXPERIENCE; SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION; SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE;

ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT EXCHANGE;

ATTENTION; BIOLOGY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECEPTION; PEER REVIEW; PERCEPTION; PERSONAL EXPERIENCE; PUBLISHING; THEORETICAL MODEL; TOPICAL DRUG ADMINISTRATION; TRUST;

EID: 84962216126     PISSN: 23301635     EISSN: 23301643     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.23669     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Beall, J. (2012). Beall's list of predatory publishers. Retrieved from http://scholarlyoa.com/2012/12/06/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2013/
2. Biagioli, M. (2002). From book censorship to academic peer review. Emergences, 12(1), 11–45.
3. Biello, D. (2007). Open Access to science under attack. Scientific American, January 27, 2007. Retrieved from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/open-access-to-science-un/
4. Bohannon, J. (2013). Who's afraid of peer review? Science Magazine, 342(6154), 60–65.
5. Bolter, R. J., & Grusin, R. (2000). Remediation: Understanding new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6. Borgman, C. L. (2007). Scholarship in the digital age: Information, infrastructure and the internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7. Bornmann, L. (2011). Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 45(1), 197–245.
8. Bornmann, L., & Mutz, R. (2014). Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references. Accepted for publication in Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.4578v3
9. Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H.D. (2013). A reliability-generalization study of journal peer reviews: A multilevel meta-analysis of inter-rater reliability and its determinants. PLoS One, 5(12), e14331.
10. Cooper, J. (2013). Fake science paper spoofs hundreds of almost fake journals. The Examiner, October 4, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.examiner.com/article/fake-science-paper-spoofs-hundreds-of-almost-fake-journals
11. Cronin, B. (2005). The hand of science: Academic writing and its rewards. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.
12. Eisen, M. (2013). I confess, I wrote the Arsenic DNA paper to expose flaws in peer-review at subscription based journals. In: it is NOT junk: A blog about genomes, DNA, evolution, open science, baseball and other important things, October 3, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1439
13. Eve, M.P. (2013). What's “open” got to do with it? In: Dr Martin Paul Eve, October 3, 2013. Retrieved from https://www.martineve.com/2013/10/03/whats-open-got-to-do-with-it/
14. Ford, E. (2013). Defining and characterizing open peer review: A review of the literature. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 44(4), 311–326. doi:10.3138/jsp.44-4-001
15. Francke, H. (2008). (Re)creations of scholarly journals: Document and information architecture in Open Access journals. Borås & Gothenburg: Department of Library and Information Science/Swedish School of Library and Information Science University College of Borås/Göteborg University. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2320/1815)
16. Frohmann, B. (2004). Deflating information: From science studies to documentation. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
17. Fry, J., Oppenheim, C., Creaser, C., Johnson, W., Summers, M., White S., & Hartley, D. (2009). Communicating knowledge: How and why researchers publish and disseminate their findings. LISU Report. Loughborough, UK: Loughborough University. Retrieved from http://www.rin.ac.uk/system/files/attachments/Communicating-knowledge-focus-groups.pdf
18. Fry, J. Probets, S., Crease, C., Greenwood, H. Spezi, V., & White, S. (2011). PEER Behavioural Research: Authors and users vis-à-vis journals and repositories. LISU Report. Loughborough, UK: Loughborough University. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.260.16&rep=rep1&type=pdf
19. Garcia, J.A., Rodriguez-Sánchez, R., & Fdez-Valdivia, J. (2015) Bias and effort in peer review. Journal of the Association of Information Science and Technology, 66, 2020–2030.
20. Grant, B. (2009). Elsevier published 6 fake journals. The Scientist, May 7, 2009. Retrieved from http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27383/title/Elsevier-published-6-fake-journals/
21. Haider, J. (2008). Open access and closed discourse: The construction of Open Access as a development issue. (PhD thesis). City University London. Retrieved from http://lup.lub.lu.se/record/1544653
22. Hames, I. (2012). Peer review in a rapidly evolving publishing landscape. In R. Campbell, E. Pentz, & I. Borthwick (Eds.), Academic and professional publishing (pp. 15–52). Cambridge, UK: Chandos.
23. Hardin, R. (2002). Trust and trustworthiness. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
24. Hardwig, J. (1991). The role of trust in knowledge. Journal of Philosophy, 88(12), 693–708.
25. Jariego, P. (2013). Given enough eyeballs. In: Mind the post, October 10, 2013. Retrieved from http://pacojariego.me/2013/10/13/given-enough-eyeballs/
26. Koebler, J. (2013). Inside Science Magazine's ‘Sting’ of Open Access Journals. In: Motherboard, October 4, 2013. Retrieved from http://motherboard.vice.com/en_uk/blog/inside-science-magazines-sting-of-open-access-journals-1
27. Larsen, P. O., & von Ins, M. (2010). The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index. Scientometrics, 84(3), 575–603.
28. Lee, C.J., Sugimoto, C.R. Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the Association of Information Science and Technology, 64, 2–17.
29. McCabe, M.J. (2002). Journal pricing and mergers: A portfolio approach. The American Economic Review, 92(1), 259–269. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3083331
30. Morrison, H. (2013). Bohannon and Science: Bogus articles and PR spin instead of peer review. In: The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics, October 12, 2013. Retrieved from http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.se/2013/10/bohannon-and-science-bogus-articles-and.html
31. Müller, R. (2014). Postdoctoral life scientists and supervision work in the contemporary university: A case study of changes in the cultural norms of science. Minerva 52(3), 329–349.
32. Musselin, C. (2013). How peer review empowers the academic profession and university managers: Changes in relationships between the state, universities and the professoriate. Research Policy, 42(5), 1165–1173.
33. Nicholas, D., Watkinson, A., Volentine, R., Allard, S., Levine, K., Tenopir, C., & Herman, E. (2014). Trust and authority in scholarly communications in the light of the digital transition: Setting the scene for a major study. Learned Publishing, 27(2), 121–134.
34. Oransky, I. (2014). Springer, IEEE withdrawing more than 120 nonsense papers. Retraction Watch, February 24, 2014. Retrieved from http://retractionwatch.com/2014/02/24/springer-ieee-withdrawing-more-than-120-nonsense-papers/
35. Roosendaal, H.E., Zalewska-Kurek, K., Geurts, P.A.T.M., & Hilf, E.R. (2010). Scientific publishing: From vanity to strategy. Oxford, UK: Chandos.
36. Rushforth, A., & de Rijcke, S. (2014). The impact of indicators: The rise of performance indicators and commensuration in Dutch biomedical research. Paper presented at the EU-SPRI Forum Early Career Researcher Conference/2014 INGENIO PhD Days, Valencia, Spain.
37. Shapin, S. (1994). A social history of truth: Civility and science in seventeenth-century England. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
38. Shipman, M. (2013). Peer Review Quality is Independent of Open Access. In: Communication breakdown: Notes from the trenches on science communication, October 13, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.scilogs.com/communication_breakdown/jon-tennant-oa/
39. Simon, J. (2010). The entanglement of trust and knowledge on the Web. Ethics and Information Technology, 12(4), 343–355.
40. Simon, J. (2013). Trust. In: D. Pritchard (Ed.), Oxford bibliographies in philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http//www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195396577/obo-9780195396577-0157.xml
41. Smith, K. (2013). The big picture about peer-review. In: Scholarly Communications @ Duke, October 10, 2013. Retrieved from http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2013/10/10/the-big-picture-about-peer-review/
42. Sokal, A. D. (1996). A physicist experiments with cultural studies. Lingua Franca, 6(4), 62–64.
43. Squazzoni, F., Bravo, G., & Takacs, K. (2013). Does incentive provision increase the quality of peer review? An experimental study. Research Policy, 42(1), 287–294.
44. Steen, R. G., Casadevall, A., & Fang F. C. (2013). Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PLoS One, 8(7), e68397.
45. Suber, P. (2012). Open access. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Retrieved from http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/open-access
46. Sundin, O. (2014). Akademisk vardag på en global referensmarknad [Academic everyday life in a global reference market]. Kulturella Perspektiv, 23(2), 49–58.
47. ToolTextRipper (2008). Text Ripper. Retrieved from https://wiki.digitalmethods.net/Dmi/ToolTextRipper
48. University of Tennessee, & CIBER Research Ltd (2013). Trust and authority in scholarly communications in the light of the digital transition: Final report. Knoxville & Greenham: University of Tennessee & CIBER Research. Retrieved from http://ciber-research.eu/download/20140115-Trust_Final_Report.pdf
49. van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538.
50. van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2011). Text mining and visualization using VOSviewer. ISSI Newsletter, 7(3), 50–54.
51. van Noorden, R. (2014). Publishers withdraw more than 120 gibberish papers. Nature News, February 24, 2014.
52. VOSviewer (2014). VOSviewer Version 1.5.4. Retrieved from http://www.vosviewer.com/
53. Ware, M., & Monkman, M. (2008). Peer review in scholarly journals: Perspective of the scholarly community: An international study. Publishing Research Consortium. Retrieved from http://publishingresearchconsortium.com/index.php/prc-documents/prc-research-projects/36-peer-review-full-prc-report-final/file
54. Webster, G. & Gawne, L. (2013). Open Access Journals certainly aren't all bad. In: Superlingo: For those of us who like and use language, October 11, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.superlinguo.com/post/63671671294/open-access-journals-certainly-arent-all-bad
55. Wennerås, C., & Wold, A. (1997). Nepotism and sexism in peer review. Nature, 387(6631), 341–343.
56. Woelert, P. (2013). The “Economy of Memory”: publications, citations, and the paradox of effective research governance. Minerva, 51(3), 341–362.
57. Yarkoni, T. (2012). Designing next-generation platforms for evaluating scientific output: What scientists can learn from the social web. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6, 72.