Sunday, 12 April 2015

Submission dealing for special session extended to 27th April

The deadline for all Social Simulation submissions, including for those for the special session on simulating the social processes of science, have the deadline extended to 27th April.

Thursday, 9 April 2015

Paper: "Alternatives to peer review: novel approaches for research evaluation"

A review article in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, describing experiments in a project on opening peer review (see coming out of the LiquidPub project.

Aliaksandr Birukou, Joseph Rushton Wakeling, Claudio Bartolin3, Fabio Casati1, Maurizio Marchese, Katsiaryna Mirylenka, Nardine Osman, Azzurra Ragone, Carles Sierra and Aalam Wassef (2011) Alternatives to peer review: novel approaches for research evaluation. Front. Comput. Neurosci., 14 December 2011. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2011.00056
In this paper we review several novel approaches for research evaluation. We start with a brief overview of the peer review, its controversies, and metrics for assessing efficiency and overall quality of the peer review. We then discuss five approaches, including reputation-based ones, that come out of the research carried out by the LiquidPub project and research groups collaborated with LiquidPub. Those approaches are alternative or complementary to traditional peer review. We discuss pros and cons of the proposed approaches and conclude with a vision for the future of the research evaluation, arguing that no single system can suit all stakeholders in various communities.

Scientific Reports introducing a fast-track reviewing process for authors who choose to pay to get their paper reviewed in three weeks

In an interesting, but controversial (see, move Scientific Report (already an offshoot of nature with a lighter-touch but pay-to-publish open publication model) us offering authors who pay an additional fee a faster touch in terms of reviewing (paying reviewers in turn for timely reviews). This involves the Nature group sub-contracting the organisation of these reviews to a commercial third party, Rubriq (

Rubriq offers any author a reviewing service that can be used to get feedback prior to publication for $650. Also see an article about this company at:

Thursday, 2 April 2015

Submission instructions for Special Issue of Scientometrics on “Simulating the Social Processes of Science”

Details about the CfP here:
Submission is by the end of April 30th 2015 in pdf format, with no particular formatting regulations for the review stage.

Papers should be submitted to:

Depending on the number of submissions by the 23rd April I will consider requests for extensions, but not if I already have notice of a good number of papers - so do NOT depend on this :-)

As ever, any queries or comments email me,

Bruce Edmonds

Wednesday, 1 April 2015

3 relevant papers in the latest issue of JASSS

Tuesday, 17 March 2015

CfP: Special Session on "Simulating the Social Processes of Science"

At Social Simlation 2015 - The Eleventh Conference of the European Social Simulation Association, Groningen (NL), 14-18 September 2015.

DeadLine: 13th April 2015
Details, registration, submission at:

This session is for presenting and discussing simulations that represent part of that set of phenomena we call 'science'. It is part of the activities of the ESSA SIG on the same subject ( This follows on from the special issue of JASSS (, the Lorentz workshop at Leiden in 2014 and previous special issues at the ESSA/SocSim series of conferences. It also connects to the PEERE ( and Knowescape ( COST actions. This session includes (but is not limited to) simulations about: scientific creativity/innovation, the peer review system, how research grants are distributed, co-authorship and academic collaboration, the emergence and impact of academic fields, and how researchers utilise the knowledge from previous researchers.

For any queries about this session and its scope contact me, Bruce Edmonds <>.

Saturday, 3 January 2015

PNAS paper: "Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping" by Siler, Lee and Bero

Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping


  1. Lisa Bero

PNAS December 22, 2014  

Abstract and paper at: 
"We found that editors and reviewers generally made good decisions regarding which manuscripts to promote and reject. However, many highly cited articles were surprisingly rejected. Our research suggests that evaluative strategies that increase the mean quality of published science may also increase the risk of rejecting unconventional or outstanding work."