{"id":2053,"date":"2016-10-25T20:35:19","date_gmt":"2016-10-25T18:35:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ist.blogs.inra.fr\/afs\/?p=2053"},"modified":"2016-10-25T20:35:43","modified_gmt":"2016-10-25T18:35:43","slug":"evaluating-traditional-peer-review-processes-and-their-alternatives-an-opinionated-discussion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ist.blogs.inrae.fr\/afs\/2016\/10\/25\/evaluating-traditional-peer-review-processes-and-their-alternatives-an-opinionated-discussion\/","title":{"rendered":"Evaluating traditional peer-review processes and their alternatives: An opinionated discussion"},"content":{"rendered":"<script type='text\/javascript' src='https:\/\/d1bxh8uas1mnw7.cloudfront.net\/assets\/embed.js'><\/script><p style=\"text-align: justify\"><em><strong>By Aaron Weiskittel, University of Maine, School of Forest Resources, Orono, Maine, USA<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><em><strong>Associate Editor with Annals of Forest Science (and a few other journals).<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<h5 style=\"text-align: justify\">Abstract<\/h5>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">The advancement of science requires the timely and effective communication of important findings, which often takes the form of peer-reviewed journal articles. In the past decade, there has been significant changes in the world of scientific publishing with the rise of e-journals, open-access articles, and a greater volume of manuscript submissions. However, the overwhelming majority of journals rely on a traditional peer-review model, which is often inefficient and ineffective. In this discussion, I evaluate the core assumptions of traditional peer-review processes, assess current alternatives to traditional peer-review, and provide recommendations for authors, reviewers, Associate Editors, and Editors. Overall, the intent of the discussion is to raise the importance of this issue and provide some suggestions for change.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><span style=\"color: #ff6600\"><a style=\"color: #ff6600\" href=\"http:\/\/mcfns.com\/index.php\/Journal\/article\/view\/MCFNS7.2_4\/MCFNS7-202\"><strong>Read the full paper <\/strong><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><span style=\"color: #808000\"><strong>Publication<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">Weiskittel A 2015. Evaluating traditional peer-review processes and their alternatives: An opinionated discussion. Mathematical and Computational Forestry and Natural-Resource Sciences 7: 81-92.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>By Aaron Weiskittel, University of Maine, School of Forest Resources, Orono, Maine, USA Associate Editor with Annals of Forest Science (and a few other journals). Abstract The advancement of science requires the timely and effective communication of important findings, which often takes the form of peer-reviewed journal articles. In the past decade, there has been [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":35,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7,51,42],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2053","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-editors-choice","category-for-authors","category-for-referees","cat-7-id","cat-51-id","cat-42-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ist.blogs.inrae.fr\/afs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2053","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ist.blogs.inrae.fr\/afs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ist.blogs.inrae.fr\/afs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ist.blogs.inrae.fr\/afs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/35"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ist.blogs.inrae.fr\/afs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2053"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/ist.blogs.inrae.fr\/afs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2053\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ist.blogs.inrae.fr\/afs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2053"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ist.blogs.inrae.fr\/afs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2053"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ist.blogs.inrae.fr\/afs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2053"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}