In gratitude for altruistic peer reviewers ‐ Reviewer and Associate Editor awards 2017
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
When we discuss the peer review system, it is more often than not to criticise it. We hear about how the system is broken by the race to maximise publications placing unbearable weight on both the number of manuscripts submitted and the time constraints that scientists have to review. We hear about how increasingly difficult it is to find reviewers, and how shallow reviews do a disservice to science and let poor science get published. We also hear about the opposite: how peer review slows the process of science communication. This editorial is not about any of those points. Here, we want to celebrate the system, and the people behind it, that through altruistic behaviour make science more trustworthy. Altruism is a behaviour that benefits the group at the expense of the self, and it is characteristic of cohesive social systems. Reviewing and editing manuscripts is altruistic behaviour. Associate editors and reviewers, by silently donating their time to improve and filter the scientific literature, are an essential element of the glue that makes the scientific community function as more than the sum of its parts. At a time when science is under attack, we feel it is important to shine light on this mostly invisible, but critical function in the scientific process. Following our launch of the annual reviewer and associate editor awards in the December 2016 issue (McGill, Dornelas & Field, 2016), we are here announcing the 2017 awards. There are many reviewers that have contributed to making GEB papers. Without them, the journal wouldn't function. Each year we acknowledge every reviewer in the last issue of the year. This year we are highlighting six reviewers who stood out. All performed multiple reviews during the year and accepted more invitations to review than they declined. Importantly, beyond those criteria, these six reviewers stood out in terms of the insight they offered, and the depth and quality of their comments. They are: Volker Bahn, Joaquin Hortal, Cory Merow, Carsten Meyer, Luca Santini and Adam Tomasovych. The editorial process at GEB, relies heavily on associate editors, who act as a second filter beyond the Editor-in-Chief team, who identify suitable reviewers, and who themselves provide detailed comments on the manuscripts they handle. The editorial system we have in place at GEB demands a lot more involvement in each manuscript by the editors than is the case for many journals. We are lucky to have such an extraordinary group of associate editors, and we are grateful to them all for the work they do. Still, among this excellent team, we would like to celebrate three people who stood out over the past year: Amanda Bates, Allen Hurlbert and Petr Keil.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».