Ploidy and Size at Multiple Scales in the Arabidopsis Sepal

HAF1 Modulates Circadian Accumulation of OsELF3 Controlling Heading Date Under Long-day Conditions in Rice

The ZmbZIP22 Transcription Factor Regulates 27-kD γ-Zein Gene Transcription during Maize Endosperm Development

Systemic Upregulation of MTP2- and HMA2-Mediated Zn Partitioning to the Shoot Supplements Local Zn Deficiency Responses

A MPK3/6-WRKY33-ALD1-Pipecolic Acid Regulatory Loop Contributes to Systemic Acquired Resistance

The Inhibitor Endosidin 4 Targets SEC7 Domain-Type ARF GTPase Exchange Factors and Interferes with Subcellular Trafficking in Eukaryotes

Nonselective Chemical Inhibition of Sec7 Domain-Containing ARF GTPase Exchange Factors

Opaque-2 Regulates a Complex Gene Network Associated with Cell Differentiation and Storage Functions of Maize Endosperm

PAPST2 plays a critical role for PAP removal from the cytosol and subsequent degradation in plastids and mitochondria

The Number of Meiotic Double-Strand Breaks Influences Crossover Distribution in Arabidopsis

SlMYC1 Regulates Type VI Glandular Trichome Formation and Terpene Biosynthesis in Tomato Glandular Cells

Inferring Roles in Defense from Metabolic Allocation of Rice Diterpenoids

The OsRR24/LEPTO1 Type-B Response Regulator is Essential for the Organization of Leptotene Chromosomes in Rice Meiosis

A Robust Auxin Response Network Controls Embryo and Suspensor Development through a bHLH Transcriptional Module

The Role of Abscisic Acid Signaling in Maintaining the Metabolic Balance Required for Arabidopsis Growth under Non-stress Conditions

HOMEOBOX PROTEIN52 Mediates the Crosstalk between Ethylene and Auxin Signaling during Primary Root Elongation by Modulating Auxin Transport-Related Gene Expression

Banyak kelemahan yang ditemukan Dian ketika menelaah proposal penelitian yang masuk. Ide yang ditawarkan banyak yang kurang kreatif dan aktual. Ada juga yang hanya merupakan duplikasi atau daur ulang dari penelitian sebelumnya.

The Receptor-like Pseudokinase GHR1 Is Required for Stomatal Closure

In the context of disaster, social media and other ICTare enablingthe manifestation of a “knowledge commons” [11], a shared information space for victims, onlookers, and the convergent digital volunt

The norms for using a CSCW system are often actively negotiatedamong users.

A related series of studies have sought to unpack the dynamics of collabo-ration and to understand which features of peer productions support the cre-ation of higher quality content. This topic has been studied especially closelyin the case of Wikipedia, where particular organizational attributes, routines,norms, and technical features impact the quality of individual contributionsas well as the final, collaborative product.

A more fruitfulapproach considers variation in peer production success to understand whenand where it works better and worse.

Just as peer produced goods vary in their nature and form, there is alsoenormous variation between and within projects in terms of the dimensionsalong which quality might be evaluated. In the case of Wikipedia, scholarshave assessed the encyclopedia in terms of factual accuracy, scope of coverage,political bias, expert evaluation, and peer evaluation – often drawing differentconclusions about the quality of Wikipedia or particular articles.

Although this hasconstituted an inconvenient fact in peer production practice, it also reflects animportant opportunity for future research. By focusing only on the projectsthat successfully mobilize contributors, researchers interested inwhenpeerproduction occurs or the reasonswhyit succeeds at producing high qualityoutputs have systematically selected on their dependent variables. An impor-tant direction for peer production research will be to study these failures.

Infollowing these three paths, scholars have begun to consider variation withinpeer production projects to understand when and why peer production leadsto different kinds of high quality outputs

Both for-profit andnon-profit organizations that have incorporated peer production models havethrived in the networked environment, often overcoming competition frommore traditional, market- and firm-based models.

Recent work hasbegun to probe more deeply into different dimensions along which qualitycan be conceptualized and measured. This new scholarship has given rise toa more nuanced understanding of the different mechanisms through whichhigh quality resources arise, and founder, in peer production.

Peer production successfully elicits contributions from diverse individu-als with diverse motivations – a quality that continues to distinguish it fromsimilar forms of collective intelligence

Resolving the tensions between different motivations and incentives presentsa design challenge for peer production systems and other collective intelli-gence platforms. The complex interdependence of motivations, incentive sys-tems, and the social behaviors that distinct system designs elicit has led Krautand Resnick (2012) to call for evidence-based social design and Benkler (2009,2011) for cooperative human system design.

Evidence from this newer body of research shows that motivations are di-versewithincontributors and that different contributors have different mixesof motivations.

The most important insight provided by some of this newer workis that contributors act for different reasons, and that theories based on a sin-gle uniform motivational model are likely to mischaracterize the motivationaldynamics.

In particular, these neweraccounts have focused on social status, peer effects, prosocial altruism, groupidentification, and related social psychological dimensions of group behavior

hat said, a growing number of stud-ies also suggest that these motives interact with each other in unpredictableways and, as a result, are vulnerable to “crowding out” when the introduc-tion of extrinsic incentives undermines intrinsic motivation

Other foundational research on motivation in peer production by Lernerand Schankerman (2010) and others has explored why organizations, firmsand governments, rather than individual users, choose to participate in opensource software.

Despite their differences in emphasis,scope, and genre, all of these surveys support the claim that motivations inpeer production are diverse and heterogeneous.

Frequently cited motivations in foundational work by theseauthors, von Hippel and von Krogh (2003), von Krogh (2003), and others in-cluded: the use value of the software to the contributing developer; the hedo-nic pleasure of building software; the increased human capital, reputation,or employment prospects; and social status within a community of peers.Other early accounts analyzing examples of peer production beyond FLOSSsuggested additional motivations. For example, Kollock (1999) emphasizedreciprocity, reputation, a sense of efficacy, and collective identity as salientsocial psychological drivers of contribution to online communities and fo-rums.

A second quality of peer production that challenged conventional economictheories of motivation and cooperation was the absence of clear extrinsic in-centives like monetary rewards. Traditional economic explanations of behav-ior rely on the assumption of a fundamentally self-interested actor mobilizedthrough financial or other incentives. In seeking to explain how peer produc-tion projects attract highly skilled contributors without money, much of theliterature on peer production has focused on questions of participant moti-vation.

A newer wave of work has stepped back from this approachand sought to explain how multiple motivational “vectors” figure in the cre-ation of common pool resources online – an approach that underscores a coreadvantage of peer production in its capacity to enable action without requir-ing translation into a system of formalized, extrinsic, carrots and sticks.

Future workcan also begin to address questions of whether, how, and why peer produc-tion systems have transformed some existing organizational fields more pro-foundly than others. An empirically-informed understanding of when andwhere organizational practices drawn from peer production provide efficientand equitable means to produce, disseminate, and access information can pro-vide social impact beyond the insights available through the study of any in-dividual community

By structuring design changes as exper-iments, these studies make credible causal claims about the relationship oforganizational structure and project outcomes that previous work struggledto establish. By intervening in real communities, these efforts achieve a levelof external validity that lab-based experiments cannot

Similar cross-organization studies in other areas of peer production, orstudies comparing across differenttypesof peer production, have remainedchallenging and rare. One difficulty with comparative work across organiza-tions, in general, is designing research capable of supporting inference intothe causes of organizational success and failure

Although some of the earliest theories of the organization of peer pro-duction celebrated the phenomena as non-hierarchical, more recent work hasquestioned both the putative lack of hierarchy and its purported benefits (e.g.,Kreiss et al., 2011).

More recent work on organizational aspects of peer production has begunto question the “stylized facts” that prevailed in earlier research.

This research built on earlier work showing that contrib-utors to bulletin boards, newsgroups, forums, and related systems adopteddurable “social roles” through their patterns of contribution (e.g., Fisher et al.,2006) – an approach that was subsequently applied to Wikipedia by Welseret al. (2011) and McDonald et al. (2011)

A large body of descriptive work has also sought to characterize organi-zational dimensions of Wikipedia and the practices of its contributors.

Much of the earliest empirical research inductively sought to describe thestructure and organization of FLOSS communities

Other foundational accounts, like Moglen (1999) and Weber (2004),attended to the emergence of informal hierarchies and governance arrange-ments within communities.

Peer productioncould, Benkler argued, outperform traditional organizational forms underconditions of widespread access to networked communications technologies,a multitude of motivations driving contributions, and non-rival informationcapable of being broken down into granular, modular, and easy-to-integrate

Initial scholarship on the organization of peer production emphasized the-oretical distinctions between peer production, bureaucracy, and transactioncost explanations of firms and markets.

Indeed, peer production com-munities perform all of the “classical” organizational functions like coordina-tion, division of labor, recruitment, training, norm creation and enforcement,conflict resolution, and boundary maintenance – but do so in the absence ofmany of the institutions associated with more traditional organizations.

Although peer production is central to social scientific and legal researchon collective intelligence, not all examples of collective intelligence created inonline systems are peer production. First, (1) collective intelligence can in-volve centralized control over goal-setting and execution of tasks.

Peer production is the most significant organizational in-novation that has emerged from Internet-mediated social practice, among themost visible and important examples of collective intelligence, and a centraltheoretical frame used by social scientists and legal scholars of collective intel-ligence.

Following Benkler (2013), we define peer produc-tion as a form of open creation and sharing performed by groups online that:set and execute goals in a decentralized manner; harness a diverse range ofparticipant motivations, particularly non-monetary motivations; and sepa-rate governance and management relations from exclusive forms of propertyand relational contracts (i.e., projects are governed as open commons or com-mon property regimes and organizational governance utilizes combinationsof participatory, meritocratic and charismatic, rather than proprietary or con-

se durability of data.

a Plan

Deprecated formats

ld.

The

ad infinitum

What do I want my data to do?

.

The

You’ll notice that quality data (however you define the term) take planning.

As an added benefit, those same qualities that make data useful and conclusions reproducible can also help to protect against the ravages of time

The data might be saved as an image, when in fact it's got a structure.

proprietary

do

What would make it better?

in the past when trying to understand

ef back to “The first steps in going digital are quite easy. They are fundamentally a question of maintaining some basic good habits. Everything else flows from these three habits:” section 1.1.6. These principles will help you and future researchers use your data, reproduce your conclusions and “future-proof” your digital work.

great

We’ve run into roadblocks, and people really appreciate hearing about them because for the most part they’re running into the same issues

My confidence also has come from the people I’ve surrounded myself with. I’ve been lucky enough to be part of honors programs in schools and worked in engineering and coding programs. I’ve also been a part of so many communities that are all full of determined, articulate, well-educated people who want to support each other and learn from each other. Because of that, I have grown to absorb some of those qualities myself.

It creates more of a community because you get closer to someone once you’ve spent a solid 24 hours working with them. It’s definitely experience to be had.

“OER are not typically counted toward research requirements, because they are seen as lacking the vetting process that comes with, for example, peer-reviewed articles.”

In what appears to be a first, a U.S. court is forcing a journal publisher to breach its confidentiality policy and identify an article's anonymous peer reviewers.

 By asking my students to craft and peer-review multiple-choice questions based on the concepts covered that week (and scaffolding this process over the semester)

one or more ‘affinity groups’ which have a name, a purpose, a consistent membership and a regular rhythm

Behind all the things on the panel is a pinkish/peach  layer.

Lettering It spells out the word Mitchell David Mucha M.D., in white with a pinkish/peach boarder. The stitching on the words is very rough. The letters are very huge and take up a majority of the space on the panel.

idea of the Stethoscope was from René Théophile Hyacinthe Laënnec

This long part of it is the same color as the bag except it has more of  rough touch to it.

About The Panel

The orginal Doctor’s Bag was the Gladstone which was made in the mid nineteen century by J.G. Beard. It was used for house visits to patients house. The contents inside of the bag is medical tools like stethoscope, clinical thermometer and tongue depressor some form of illumination, such as a torch, plessor, ophthalmoscope and auriscope; a test tube or two; and bottles of Benedict’s reagent and acetic acid to complete the kit (RACGP).

The items that I will be describing from the panel is a doctor bag, stethoscope, the colors, and finally the lettering. I will be describing them in the same order I have mentioned them.

The top center panel, belonging to Eddie (no last name reported), has a mosaic background of 6″x 6″ burgundy, soft dusty rose, light bubblegum pink, and sapphire blue squares. His name is then sewn in large, cursive lettering across the top left half of the panel.

Since the panels would be featured in the Quilt as a visual memorial and not as a blanket, I wondered why the panels that were predominantly paintings were not made of canvas fabric instead of fabrics associated with apparel, or at least primed with some kind of Gesso to preserve the piece. I am by no means an expert, but as an artist who has experimented with different mediums on both primed and un-primed fabrics, I can attest for the value of using the right mediums on their respective materials. Though I am sure acceptable fabric paints were mostly used, I could tell where they were not.

Although tied by a similar tragedy, each panel exhumes individuality through applying different artistic methods.

Each panel is made of a soft fabric and sewn onto a large, 12’x 12′ piece of ivory linen fabric.

Block #621

the rainbow in the body of the image is shown vibrantly in the majority of picture which by its colorful characteristics

Another important visual element that I detected within this image was the blue bracelet circling the shiny arm holding the dog.

This gives the rainbow an ever greater meaning, maybe Jimmy had an aspiration for music and pursued a career in one, or possibly just has a respect for the fine musical arts.

hings within the panel that I took notice of immediately was the dog that was held by the shiny arm.

The panel base is mostly a pure, bloody, vibrant red color. This is also in the material of somewhat a shiny, soft, velvet material that vividly gives the panel some extravagant flare.

Media Maker Spaces is an exploration for them experience a creating, editing, storing. publishing and streaming media to their peers and to their immediate context.

Festivals and rituals - Living archives of the memories

The aim is to demonstrate the distance travelled on their journey in the form of tangible, trackable learning outcomes and applications.

compare where their engagement levels stand against the rest of the class.

review and critique each other’s work.

listen well—to be a good “critical friend.”

Brianna:I had a negative experience where, in my master’s, my supervisor encouraged me to submit one of my papers to a journal for publication. I just submitted the paper to a journal as a course paper without making any changes, not even changing the title page. The journal told me to re-submit with revisions, but I thought thatit was a rejection, and I stopped the process—it was intimidating. I thought being involved in a journal where I know some of the people and they won’t just get an online e-mail response from editors would be helpful

The problems here stem from a lack of comprehensiveness, interoperability, and critical mass uptake as the de facto platform for PPPR. The result of this is a mess of different platforms having different types of commentary on different articles, or sometimes the same ones, none of which can be viewed easily in a single, standardised way. That doesn’t seem very efficient.

"What our collaborative learning style empowers and enables is a student's resilience -- how do you look to your neighbor as a resource, how do you test your own theories, how do you understand if you're on the right track or the wrong track?" says Monique DeVane, College Prep's head of school. "It teaches them that it's not just about content; it's about cultivating habits of mind that are the underpinnings of deeper scholarship."

protected platform whereby many expert reviewers could read and comment on submissions, as well as on fellow reviewers’ comments

intelligent crowd reviewing

The Effects of the Built Environment on Child Friendliness and Obesity: Analysis on Auburn Ave

Conclusion

Description of Ponce City Market

Description of Krog Street Market

Demographics of Ponce de Leon Area

Demographics of Krog Street Area

 (“725 Ponce” 2015)

History of Ponce City Market

History of Krog Street Market

Introduction

Thesis: The rhetoric of the built environment of Atlanta shows that racial discrimination, white flight, car dominated transportation network, and segregation by race and class have caused Atlanta to have the highest income inequality ratio in the country, and the same factors that led to severe income inequality in Atlanta are perpetuating the problem today.

Built Environment Analysis (DRAFT)

As a result of a long history of white flight and racial discrimination, Atlanta’s transportation network is predominately designed for travel by car. Consistent public transportation is present downtown and in the immediately surrounding areas. Evidence:

Cost of living map and MARTA map side by side

The neighborhood one grows up in has been shown to impact their chances for upward economic mobility, therefore gentrification and neighborhoods segregated by class perpetuate income inequality.

The Fading American Dream: Trends in Absolute Income Mobility Since 1940” by Raj Chetty and Nathaniel Hendren “All Cities Are Not Created Unequal” by Alan Berube

history of white flight

While there is some public transportation for people living further away from the center of the city, the current accommodations are insufficient for people without cars.

The trend of Atlanta’s middle and upper classes moving out to the suburbs is shifting, and these groups are beginning to move back into the city. Therefore, neighborhoods are being gentrified to meet the growing demand.

Low-income residents that have settled close to the city, along public transportation routes, are having to move further out because the gentrification of neighborhoods raises the cost of housing.

The quality and quantity of public transportation decreases as you move further away from the center of the city. Consequently, those living in poverty who have relocated further away from the city are in a worse situation because they do not have the same amenities available to them.

“Atlanta: Unsafe at any Speed: Transit Fatality Raises Issues of Race, Poverty and Transportation Justice” by Laurel Paget-Seekins “Health Impact Assessment of the Atlanta Beltline” by Catherine Ross

“Using Vehicle Value as a Proxy for Income: A Case Study on Atlanta’s I-85 HOT Lane” by Sara Khoeini and Randall Guensler “Atlanta: Unsafe at any Speed: Transit Fatality Raises Issues of Race, Poverty and Transportation Justice” by Laurel Paget-Seekins “The Human Scale” by Andreas Mol Dalsgaard

Photo of bench in Little Five Points

“Atlanta: Unsafe at any Speed: Transit Fatality Raises Issues of Race, Poverty and Transportation Justice” by Laurel Paget-Seekins “How Cities Use Design to Drive Homeless People Away” by Robert Rosenberger

“CHANGING BOHEMIA Little Five Points, a Haven of Counterculture, Faces Gentrification and Dissension” by Melissa Turner “Health Impact Assessment of the Atlanta Beltline” by Catherine Ross

“Atlanta: Unsafe at any Speed: Transit Fatality Raises Issues of Race, Poverty and Transportation Justice” by Laurel Paget-Seekins “The Human Scale” by Andreas Mol Dalsgaard

Présidentielles et bulles de filtres: le référencement politique de Facebook passé au crible

ittle direct indication that the Trump administration or congressional leaders known for attacking scientific research on climate change and human health are looking to exploit reproducibility campaigns as a political opportunity.

Eve Marder, a neurobiologist at Brandeis University and a deputy editor at eLife, says that around one third of reviewers under her purview sign their reviews.

If Kriegeskorte is invited by a journal to write a review, first he decides whether he’s interested enough to review it. If so, he checks whether there’s a preprint available—basically a final draft of the manuscript posted publicly online on one of several preprint servers like arxiv and biorxiv. This is crucial. Writing about a manuscript that he’s received in confidence from a journal editor would break confidentiality—talking about a paper before the authors are ready. If there’s a preprint, great. He reviews the paper, posts to his blog, and also sends the review to the journal editor.

The tweet linked to the blog of a neuroscientist named Niko Kriegeskorte, a cognitive neuroscientist at the Medical Research Council in the UK who, since December 2015, has performed all of his peer review openly.

object you are photographing b

I hope to show with this tutorial, however, that the Dino-Lite Premier AM-311S has the potential to create useful models at an affordable price.

capture images for processing

The struggle between Whewell and Lubbock represented two distinct visions of what a referee might be. Whewell was the authoritative generalist, glancing down on the landscape of knowledge. He was unconcerned with — and probably not in a position to critique — the details. Such referees were, according to the Royal Society's president, “Elevated by their character and reputation above the influence of personal feelings of rivalry or petty jealousy”4. Lubbock was a younger specialist, Airy's equal. This allowed him to take a fine-tooth comb to Airy's arguments; it also put him in the position of reviewing a direct competitor.

Despite many editors being unpaid or poorly remunerated for their work, plant scientist Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva believes they “should be held accountable” if authors are made to wait for an “excessive or unreasonable amount of time” before a decision is made on their research.

by introducing editorial management software systems.

Pivotal roles are played by three enzymes, (phospho-fructokinase (PFK), pyruvate kinase (PK) and phosphofructoki-nase/fructose-2,6-bisphosphatase (PFKFB)) through their inhibi-tion or activation by three reaction intermediates (fructose-1,6-bisphosphate (F16BP), fructose-2,6-bisphosphate (F26BP), andphosphoenolpyruvate (PEP)) in glycolysis. These enzymes havemultiple isoforms (PFKL/M/P, PKM1/M2/L/R and PFKFB1-4)which are subjected to contrasting allosteric regulations [9–11].Each isoform, therefore, affects the glycolytic activity in a distinctmanner.All three isoforms of PFK are activated by F6P and F26BP [12],but only PFKM and PFKL are activated by F16BP [13–15].PFKFB is a bifunctional enzyme whose kinase and bisphosphatasedomains catalyze the formation and hydrolysis reaction of F26BP,respectively [9,16]. Isozymes of PFKFB differ in their kinase andphosphatase activities as well as in their sensitivity to feedbackinhibition by phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP) [17–19]. Thus, eachisozyme of PFKFB has a profoundly distinct capacity inmodulating PFK activity. Pyruvate kinase (PK) in mammaliansystems is encoded by two genes that can produce two isoformseach. Except for the PKM1 isoform, the other three isoformsof PK, PKM2, PKL and PKR, are activated by F16BP to varyingextents [11]. The M2 isoform of PK, in addition to activation byF16BP, is also under the control of a host of allosteric modulatorsincluding serine, succinylaminoimidazolecarboxamide ribose-5-phosphate (SAICAR) and phenylalanine among others [

Examples of bad peer review and why it is damaging to researchers

Clarity on what qualifies as a respected preprint

No Bias, No Merit: The Case against Blind Submission

Nevertheless, there were a few who questioned that definition of fairness and challenged the assumption that it was wrong for reviewers to take institutional affiliation and history into consider- ation. "We consider a result from a scientist who has never before been wrong much more seriously than a similar report from a scientist who has never before been right. . . . It is neither unnatural nor wrong that the work of scientists who have achieved eminence through a long record of important and suc- cessful research is accepted with fewer reservations than the work of less eminent scientists" (196). "A reviewer may be justified in assuming at the outset that [well-known] people know what they are do- ing" (211). "Those of us who publish establish some kind of track record. If our papers stand the test of time . . . it can be expected that we have acquired expertise in scientific methodology" (244). (This last respondent is a woman and a Nobel laureate.)

A similar point is made by some of the participants in a discussion of peer review published in the Behavioral and Brain Sciences: An International Journal of Current Research and Theory with Open Peer Commentary (5 [1982]: 187-255). The occasion was the report of research conducted by D. P. Peters and S. J. Ceci. Peters and Ceci had taken twelve articles published in twelve different journals, altered the titles, substituted for the names of the authors fictitious names identified as researchers at institu- tions no one had ever heard of (because they were, made up), and resubmitted the articles to the jour- nals that had originally accepted them. Three of the articles were recognized as resubmissions, and of the remaining nine eight were rejected. The response to these results ranged from horror ("It puts at risk the whole conceptual framework within which we are accustomed to make observations and con- struct theories" [245]) to "so what else is new."

. Predict- ably, Schaefer's statement provoked a lively exchange in which the lines of battle were firmly, and, as I will argue, narrowly, drawn. On the one hand those who agreed with Schaefer feared that a policy of anonymous review would involve a surrender "to the spurious notions about objectivity and absolute value that . . . scientists and social scientists banter about"; on the other hand those whose primary concern was with the fairness of the procedure believed that "[jiustice should be blind" ("Correspon- dence" 4). Each side concedes the force of the opposing argument-the proponents of anonymous re- view admit that impersonality brings its dangers, and the defenders of the status quo acknowledge that it is important to prevent "extraneous considerations" from interfering with the identification of true merit (5)

ouble-blind) peer review became an established component of thepost-war scientific bureaucracy (Chubin & Hackett, 1990,pp. 19 –24)

When students see adults actually listening to them with respect, that is when they begin to realize they have a voice and can make a difference in their world.

Does peer review work? Is peer review broken? The vast majority of authors believe it improves their final work, and since it’s evolving from this solid base, it’s clearly not broken. But before we can have a useful discussion about its purpose and effectiveness, we need to agree on which approach to peer review we’re talking about, then whether our expectations of it are reasonable and accurate.

Here are some variables around peer-review we have to understand before we know what kind of peer review we’re actually talking about: Is it blinded? If it is blinded, is it single-blinded or double-blinded? Is there statistical or methodological review in addition to external peer-review? Are the peer reviewers truly experts in the field or a more general assemblage of individuals? What are the promises and goals of the peer review process? What type of disclosure of financial or other potential competing interests is made? Are reviewers aware of these? Is there a senior editor of some sort involved along with outside peer reviewers? Is the peer-review “inherited” from another body, such as a committee or a preceding journal process (e.g., in “cascading” title situations or when expert panels have been involved)? Are there two tiers of peer review within the same journal’s practices? Is the peer-review done at the article level or at the corpus level (as happens with some supplements)? Is plagiarism-detection software used as part of the process? Are figures checked for manipulation? Is the peer reviewer graded by a senior editor as part of an internal evaluation and improvement process?

challenge his friends

White (1984, cited by Vaughan, 1991) reported on a study conducted at California State University in which two essays were tucked into a huge sample of essays and read a year apart by the same readers using a 6-point scale. The reading a year later produced scores that were identical to the first in only 20 per cent of the cases. The scores differed by one point or less in 58 per cent of cases and 2 points or less in 83 per cent of the cases. As White points out, a 1-point difference is generally considered unproblematic, but on a 6-point scale the difference between a 3 and a 4 is the difference between a pass and a fail. Obviously, then, changes in examiner severity/leniency over-time have implications for maintaining standards, and must be monitored. Research has been conducted into variations in examiner severity/leniency during the marking of a particular allocation of scripts, a marking period, and over more extended periods of time.

According to Stemler, consistency estimates of interrater reliability assume that it is not necessary for judges to share a common meaning of the rating scale, so long as each judge is consistent in their classifications.

(2004) notes that most research papers describe interrater reliability as though it is a single, universal concept. He argues this practice is imprecise and potentially misleading. The specific type of interrater reliability being discussed should be indicated. He categorises the most common statistical methods for reporting interrater reliability into one of three classes: consensus estimates; consistency estimates; and measurement estimates.

in the latter both the wide differential in manuscript rejection rates and the high correlation between refereerecommendations and editorial decisions suggests that reviewers and editors agree more on acceptance than on rejection.

In the former there is also much more agreement on rejectionthan acceptance

. Referees ofgrant proposals agree much more about what is unworthy of support than about what does have scientific value. In

Marsh, H. W., Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Daniel, H. D., & O’Mara, A. (2009). Gender effects in the peerreviews of grant proposals: A comprehensive meta-analysis comparing traditional and multilevelapproaches.Review of Educational Research, 79, 1290–1326

One mid-career scientist told a story of how he and others in his lab counteractedan abuse of power by his mentor, a senior scientist, while he was in training. Hismentor received a manuscript to review that was authored by a ‘‘quasi-competitor.’’It presented results of experiments similar to those that were going on in thementor’s lab. The scientist continued, ‘‘That paper ... basically would have beat usto the punch. They would have published these results before us, and they wouldhave gotten credit, and not us. And my mentor, God bless him, sat on the paper.’’The mentor not only delayed writing the review but asked someone working in thelab to write it (a move of questionable ethicality in itself). That lab person and ourrespondent decided, in response, to stall their own work, so that their lab would nothave an unfair advantage over the group who submitted the paper for review. In theend, the original group got credit for the findings, while the respondent’s lab wasalso able to publish their slightly different findings. He ended his story with,‘‘Sometimes you’re in an awkward position, and you try to do the best thing you canunder the circumstances, within your own internal ethical clock or whatever. Andsometimes it’s ugly and it’s imperfect, but it’s the only thing you can do. If we hadgone to the mentor and voiced this objection, our careers would have been over. Ifwe had approached the journal—God forbid, forget it.’’ The speaker qualified thisstory by saying that it made him sound much more ethical than he actually is.

The focus-group discussions showed, however, that scientists see peer review asaffording a unique, even protected opportunity for competitors to take advantage ofthem. In this sense, competition infects the peer review process, not only throughscientists’ competition with other applicants, but also through scientists’ distrust ofthe reviewers themselves, as competitors. The following exchange among mid-career discussants shows their sense of vulnerability

I really hate to admit this, but you do the same thing with your competitors asyou do with grant agencies. You sucker-punch them. You might have—when Isubmit a paper, I already have the next two or three papers’ worth of data. Imean, I know what I’m going to be publishing a year from now, mostly. But thepaper that comes out of my lab is Part A. Parts B and C are mostly on my desk.And I’ve put things in part A to basically entice my competitors into making anass out of themselves, or to second guess, or say, ‘‘Oh that must be wrongbecause of that, or something.’

As I have mentioned in previous posts, several platforms have appeared recently that could take on this role of third-party reviewer. I could imagine at least: libreapp.org, peerevaluation.org, pubpeer.com, and publons.com. Pandelis Perakakis mentioned several others as well: http://thomas.arildsen.org/2013/08/01/open-review-of-scientific-literature/comment-page-1/#comment-9.

Below I list a few advantages and drawbacks of anonymity where I assume that a drawback of anonymous review is an advantage of identified review and vice versa. Drawbacks Reviewers do not get credit for their work. They cannot, for example, reference particular reviews in their CVs as they can with publications. It is relatively “easy” for a reviewer to provide unnecessarily blunt or harsh critique. It is difficult to guess if the reviewer has any conflict of interest with the authors by being, for example, a competing researcher interested in stalling the paper’s publication. Advantages Reviewers do not have to fear “payback” for an unfavourable review that is perceived as unfair by the authors of the work. Some (perhaps especially “high-profile” senior faculty members) reviewers might find it difficult to find the time to provide as thorough a review as they would ideally like to, yet would still like to contribute and can perhaps provide valuable experienced insight. They can do so without putting their reputation on the line.

With most journals, if I submit a paper that is rejected, that information is private and I can re-submit elsewhere. In open review, with a negative review one can publicly lose face as well as lose the possibility of re-submitting the paper. Won’t this be a significant disincentive to submit? This is precisely what we are trying to change. Currently, scientists can submit a paper numerous times, receive numerous negative reviews and ultimately publish their paper somewhere else after having “passed” peer review. If scientists prefer this system then science is in a dangerous place. By choosing this model, we as scientists are basically saying we prefer nice neat stories that no one will criticize. This is silly though because science, more often than not, is not neat and perfect. The Winnower believes that transparency in publishing is of the utmost importance. Going from a closed anonymous system to an open system will be hard for many scientists but I believe that it is the right thing to do if we care about the truth.

PLOS Labs is working on establishing structured reviews and we have talked with them about this.

It should be noted that papers will always be open for review so that a paper can accumulate reviews throughout its lifetime.

You don’t have to do everything yourself!

conversation” (432).31

‘review of the reviews’ (with reviewers weighing in on the issues raised by others),