Rubriq overview for STM Innovation Meeting 2012 - independent peer review
•Download as PPT, PDF•
1 like•303 views
Rubriq was invited to present a "Future Flash" session at the STM Innovation Meeting in London on Dec 7th, 2012. The Future Lab Flash sessions are a unique format of very quick presentations designed to communicate an innovation or idea very rapidly. Rubriq was in the first session - "Future Lab Flash Session 1; Metrics, analytics and cool apps- 5 crazy 5 minute talks on new initiatives by STM members". For more information about the STM Innovation Meeting, visit http://www.stm-assoc.org/events/stm-innovations-seminar-2012/. This presentation provided a quick overview about the problem we are addressing at Rubriq (redundancy and inefficiency in the scientific peer review process) and our solution of an independent peer review system. We are a for-benefit (self-funded) business. We are NOT a publisher - in fact we are set up to support all types of publishers. Our core mission is to put time back into science. Read our presentation to learn more, or visit us at www.rubriq.com.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Featured
Featured (20)
Rubriq overview for STM Innovation Meeting 2012 - independent peer review
- 1. A faster way to publish trusted research.
- 2. About Rubriq Our mission is Our mission is We are a We are a We are We are to put to put FOR-BENEFIT FOR-BENEFIT NOT NOT TIME TIME business business a publisher a publisher back into back into science science
- 3. “I need to publish in the best journal possible as quickly as possible” Prestige :: Time Prestige Time
- 4. Journal Loops (gradual exclusion) e re shed h e publi Imp b I want to act En F du ac t pp ub or – li sh Author ed he Re re put ation
- 5. Time Spent on Rejected Reviews: Annually 15.6 Million Hours = 1779 Years 15.6 Million Hours = 1779 Years
- 6. A Pragmatic Approach Rigorous, double-blind peer review, but… 1 1 2 2 Decouple Decouple Create a Create a validation from validation from standard standard dissemination dissemination approach to approach to peer review peer review
- 7. Our Scorecard Rubric Quality of Research Quality of Presentation Novelty & Interest
- 9. This Model This Model Does Not Replace Does Not Replace Journal Peer Review Journal Peer Review Unless you want it to…
- 10. How it works… 1-2 weeks 11 22 33 44 Classification & Classification & Reviewer Report Reviewer Report Journal Journal Optional Optional Manuscript Report Manuscript Report (R-score) (R-score) Recommendations Recommendations Journal Journal Matching Matching
- 11. Traditional Peer J J Reviewed Journals (journal decision) Gold Mega OA (valid science criteria) Green OA (self-publish)
- 12. Traditional Journals J J • Free Accounts • Manage Profile • Setup Alerts or Search/Browse • Connect with Authors
- 13. Making the Connection J J
- 15. Author Benefits • Faster Path • Unbiased Feedback • Quality Reviews • Transparent Approach • Increased Options
- 16. Reviewer Benefits • Flexibility & Choice • Compensation Options • Increased Exposure • Improved Reviewer Skills • Consistency
- 17. Editor Benefits • Decrease time to first decision • Attract papers • Streamline screening • Better use of your reviewers • More informed decisions
- 18. Where are we? •Beta Site Live •Testing with Five Publishers •Advisory Board
- 20. Time’s Up! About your speaker: Name: Keith Collier Company: Rubriq Email: keith.collier@rubriq.com Social Media: twitter: keithecollier or rubriqnews linkedin: http://linkd.in/QZ5j1c
Editor's Notes
- Thanks for the invitation and opportunity to talk about Rubriq. I hope to give you a sense of - why we are developing an independent service for standardized peer review - how the system works, - and how as publishers you can take advantage of the system, which will be a free service to editors.
- If you only remember 3 things about Rubriq, I hope it’s this… We are a FOR-BENEFIT (self-funded) business We are NOT a publisher - in fact we are setup to support all types of publishers Our mission is to put TIME BACK INTO SCIENCE...
- Well by and large, publication in a top journal is still the goal for researchers. But there is time element also at play…this quote captures the sentiment “ I need to publish in the best journal possible as quickly as possible. “ The prestige : time/hassle ratio is how researchers determine publishing decisions. In my opinion, it’s these factors driving authors to OA options (much more than access issues)
- Researchers are smart – they generally know how good their research is, but they are incented to shoot high (outside of their comfort zone)… The problem is this sets up the “Journal Loops” cycle – submit high, where rejection common, then papers flow from journal to journal – each time having the review process start anew… Most researchers tell us it’s not a matter of IF they will be accepted, but WHEN… It’s just a highly inefficient and painful process for just about everyone involved. Lot’s of redundancies associated with this… New models are very aware of this and focused on faster publishing options: PeerJ, PLoS ONE, F1000 Research
- It’s it’s not just individual pain – on the macro level, the collective inefficiency across all STM journals is massive. It’s a 15.6 million hour tax on the research community each year. That's 1,779 years - annually - time that could be spent on new research discoveries (references and calculations on our website) But we have an idea to give some of this time back…
- How to address Journal Loops? We don’t think you need to get radical or scrap the current system… (couldn’t if we wanted) Let’s meet the research and publishing community where they are today. Our approach uses pre-publication, double blind peer review. But… Provide it as a service to author, independent from any one journal Create a standardize review process – so it’s portable and can stand on it’s own if needed
- Our standard approach is our rubric…. A scientific output instrument – a transparent, rapid and reliable method for assessing quality of a manuscript – outside the lens of a single journal It’s broken into Quality of Presentation, Quality of Research, and Novelty & Impact And a new Metric – the R-Score
- We also need to compress the time it takes to find reviewers and get feedback…. When peer review isn’t focused on whether you should publish this paper in this journal, you can rethink how to manage the process We have created a pull workflow, allowing more choice for reviewers We are also experimenting with compensation models and new recognition programs. Paying reviewers is part of our business model
- But here is an Important Point - We don’t see this replacing the peer review that’s being done in traditional journals When we talk with Editors, this is an area they clearly need to own for their journal… But we do see this process speeding up the entire system in a number of ways…Let’s talk about how it will work…
- So authors come to Rubriq – pay to receive an independent, standardized review and Rubriq report in about a week. It’s an independent stamp of quality and pre-submission interest from 3 reviewers. We classify the paper and run various checks, including iThenticate Compile reviews from 3 reviewers And make journal recommendations Authors receive an independent stamp of quality in the form of the Rubriq report/r-score. At that point, the author can improve the paper or broadcast it into the Rubriq network…
- We’ve designed Rubriq to work with any of the current peer review/publishing models… I won’t cover Green OA, since that is fairly obvious, we provide a verification link so any author can show their paper was peer reviewed with the associated report. So let’s look at how the model works for both traditional peer reviewed journals (editorial decision to accept/reject) and the “valid science” approach to acceptance in mega OA journals like PLoS ONE.
- If we want to put time back into science, we need to reduce journal loops and find a faster match between paper and journal In addition to recommending journals, but we also allow any journal to create an account for free , update the information about the journal and provide tools to find good papers. Papers that have been broadcast will be able to be discovered by journals….
- This shows paper matches (3) based on search alerts that were setup by the journals This screen shot shows the Broadcast queue of all papers. You can search, filter, sort Editors can see the paper, Rubriq report, and reviewer identities They can ping the author that they would like to have the paper submitted, increasing the chances of acceptance
- GOLD OA (mega-Journal) Gold OA, especially with a “valid science” acceptance criteria allows Rubriq to play a more active role in the editorial process. Working with OA publishers, would be determine the “valid science” score as it maps to our rubric for a faster path to publication. This allows a fast path, direct connection options for those authors that want to publish in a mega OA journal.
- We believe there are lots of benefits in this model Authors get feedback faster, have more options for publishing, and more transparency in the review process Ultimately they have more control and don’t burn any bridges or time before making the first submission.
- And Reviewers have told us they prefer the scorecard approach – it takes on average less time and is a more consistent, transparent approach to peer review. Their reviews have the potential to be seen by more editors, and They also have choice in paper selected and are compensated for their reviews.
- Editors can use this to make their journal more competitive… Find good papers that otherwise wouldn’t be submitted Make better decisions about what goes through their peer review, so they make better use of their reviewers Treat Rubriq as an extra set of reviewers, not a replacement.
- We continue to seek out 1-1 conversations with all the stakeholders involved. Our beta site is live and we are accepting limited submissions in the areas of Immunology, Cancer Research, and Microbiology We are partnering with 5 different publisher on the beta of Rubriq. We also have a strong advisory board that continues to grow.
- I had to leave one slide to just mention the great team we have back in Durham working on the system. Most of them are scientists themselves – former researchers. They care about science and improving the system. We have a lot more information on our website and Shashi and I will be around the rest of the day if you have any questions.