Subscribe: Comments on Journalology: Peer review lite at PLoS ONE?
http://journalology.blogspot.com/feeds/8610735365503832985/comments/default
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
Tags:
agree comment  open peer  peer review  peer  personal experience  personal  plos  review  reviewer  reviewers  totally agree  totally 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on Journalology: Peer review lite at PLoS ONE?

Comments on Journalology: Peer review lite at PLoS ONE?





Updated: 2017-11-18T05:29:38.056+00:00

 



Thanks Lilly. I've noted before that PLoS ONE ...

2009-06-14T15:50:01.525+00:00

Thanks Lilly. I've noted before that PLoS ONE have tightened up their processes since the early days. Open peer review has been the rule on the BMJ and the medical journals published by BioMed Central for many years. I totally agree with your view on it improving transparency; I believe it should be the future of peer review. Open peer review is optional on PLoS ONE, but it's great that they're adopting it.

See my previous posts on open peer review. There's also a Wikipedia entry that gives more background.



For what it's worth, my research group recentl...

2009-06-12T18:21:28.070+00:00

For what it's worth, my research group recently submitted a manuscript to PLoS ONE and it was reviewed by four reviewers (of which the Academic Editor was not one). We've submitted to Nature, Neuron, etc. and the type of review actually didn't seem very different, except that with PLoS ONE, the reviewers were named. I didn't find the review easy at all (they required significant revisions), but I liked the integrity of taking responsibility for the comments you make. There's a lot of games you can play in the review process, especially working in a tight field with potentially high-priority results. Blocking a competitor's work in the race to be "first" is sadly a common thing. Transparency works both ways: as a reviewer you take personal responsibility both for rejecting a good paper and, just as importantly, letting a bad one through. So there's a strong incentive to do a professional job.



Notice that this blog post was posted in February ...

2009-03-22T22:11:00.000+00:00

Notice that this blog post was posted in February 2007. PLoS took note of the criticisms, and tightened their processes. The early talk of a revolution in peer review was hyperbole; PLoS ONE is no more post-publication peer reviewed than any other online journal.



totally agree with the above comment. The reviewer...

2009-02-21T17:03:00.000+00:00

totally agree with the above comment. The reviewer's comments were far from an easy ride, as they have requested a large list of difficult-to-do experiments and thorough explanations of the findings. Not easy at all..



My personal experience is totally different than w...

2008-02-01T11:09:00.000+00:00

My personal experience is totally different than what is described in this article. Some time ago I sent a paper of mine to PLoS One, and only after a thorough peer review and a subsequent revision it was accepted. Also, I acted as a peer reviewer for PloS One and the paper involved was reviewed by three other peer reviewers as well. So basically I think that the suspicion in this artical is misplaced.