[{"id":331,"title":"Linking authorship and reviewing activity in science publishing","sha":"0f76310f95a7526852a8ca39fceb4f8e","user_id":null,"state":"published","body":"Everybody wants to publish, but peers for review are increasingly hard to find. Online systems that help journal editors handle submissions indicate how many invitations for review a person accepted or declined. Linking this information automatically to the names of the first and last author of any submission to a specific journal, and displaying it during the online submission process, would make submitters aware of their own reviewing history with this journal, and make them aware that the journal editor will also be automatically informed about this. Editors might justifiably be less inclined to allow a manuscript into review if the authors have a history of declining review invitations. Additionally, offering both authors and editors a ranking opportunity in the online system as commonplace with any online business ('how do you rate this review?' - corrected for the type of decision that is rated) would make submitters aware of their reviewing performance, as well as editors - at the time when submitters might want to make the best of impressions with editors, i.e. during submission of their own manuscript. Rather than rewarding reviewing activity by quantifying it in metrics, such practice might enhance effort put into peer review.","created_at":"2016-08-15T06:55:29.116Z","updated_at":"2022-03-27T13:21:25.660Z","zenodo_id":145363,"doi":"http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.60164","subject":null,"tags":["peer review","authorship","online submission"],"vote_count":4,"view_count":1,"score":4.1,"deleted":false,"muted":false,"tweeted":true,"attachment_file_name":null,"attachment_content_type":null,"attachment_file_size":null,"attachment_updated_at":null},{"id":301,"title":"Is the rise of hedging language in scientific papers correlated in time with the rise in peer review?","sha":"2ddde9c0ef80c211115d18420f4a06f3","user_id":null,"state":"published","body":"In a talk at FORCE2016 (https://www.force11.org/meetings/force2016), Steven Pinker discussed bad writing in science, and mentioned how it had changed over time.  One of his statements was that scientists hedge (for example, using hedge words such as \"generally\" rather than making stronger points; see http://www.uefap.com/writing/feature/hedge.htm) more than they used to.  Some of this may just be style, due to the changing preference and practice of the scientific community, but it also would be interesting to see if this change is related to the rise of peer review (which has become standard relatively recently; see, for example, http://theconversation.com/hate-the-peer-review-process-einstein-did-too-27405). Perhaps authors now try to be less definitive to avoid giving reviewers grounds to reject their work.\r\n\r\nThis hypothesis could be examined by measuring the use of hedging language (for example, through natural language processing) in articles in a particular domain (physics, for example) and seeing if it is correlated in time with the rise in peer review (which could be obtained through research into the history of science writing, or which may have already been collected.)  If this were true for multiple domains where peer review became standard at different times, it would be a strong argument for the hypothesis to be true.  This also could be done for specific journals, rather than domains.","created_at":"2016-04-19T13:24:23.440Z","updated_at":"2019-10-31T03:20:11.981Z","zenodo_id":108577,"doi":"http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.50079","subject":null,"tags":["nlp","history of science","science of science","peer review"],"vote_count":6,"view_count":1,"score":6.1,"deleted":false,"muted":false,"tweeted":true,"attachment_file_name":null,"attachment_content_type":null,"attachment_file_size":null,"attachment_updated_at":null}]