MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400279629 · doi:10.3138/jsp-2023-0073

The Ethics of Scholarly Book Reviewing

2024· article· en· W4400279629 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Steven E. Gump

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Scholarly Publishing · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPublishing and Scholarly Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarly communicationEngineering ethicsSociologyPublic relationsBusinessPolitical scienceEngineeringLawPublishing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Post-publication scholarly book reviews, as acts of public assessment, draw attention to the contributions of recently published scholarly works. The various actors in the production and consumption of scholarly book reviews—authors, publishers, reviewers, book review editors, readers—bring different expectations to such reviews. As evaluators, reviewers must strive for accurate and appropriate descriptions and assessments that are objective, fair, unbiased, and without conflicts of interest. Questions of ethics can arise in many ways. This article describes the key relationships in the production of scholarly book reviews, emphasizing several ethical dimensions that reviewers should keep in mind at all stages of the reviewing process.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.3150.345
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0000.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.112
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Scholarly PublishingSame topicPublishing and Scholarly CommunicationFrench-language works237,207