DOCSLIB.ORG

Multidimensional Journal Evaluation of PLOS ONE

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Multidimensional Journal Evaluation of PLOS ONE DE GRUYTER DOI 10.1515/libri-2013-0021 Libri 2013; 63(4):259−271 Winner of LIBRI Best Student Paper Award 2013 Christel Fein Multidimensional Journal Evaluation of PLOS ONE Abstract: PLOS ONE (formerly PLoS ONE) is an international sary to evaluate beyond the impact factor to incorporate open access online journal published by the Public Library various quantitative informetric indicators for its several of Science. The periodical covers all science and medicine dimensions into the assessment of a scientific journal categories and has published as many as 28,852 documents (Moed 2005). This paper focuses on the evaluation of the from 2007 to 2011. PLOS ONE will be used to show the range scientific online journal PLOS ONE (formerly PLoS ONE), of journal metrics and informetric methods regarding va- investigating the research question how its standing in lidity, practicability and informative value. To assess this the scientific community is evaluated and whether there data as specifically as possible and to address all relevant are different dimensions each having specific indicators of factors, the evaluation is split into five dimensions, each journal evaluation. Librarians, publishers, editors, schol- of which involves distinct metrics. The five dimensions are arly authors, and the readership are among the stakehold- journal output, journal content, journal perception, journal ers in journal evaluation, but all have diverse preferences citations and journal management. Each of them is pointed in employing methods of journal evaluation (Haustein out in the process of the analyses, and all significant evalu- 2012), and it is of interest which indicators of which di- ation results are presented. The results show that PLOS ONE mension they consider as most significant. has experienced an enormous development. Because of a PLOS ONE is a peer-reviewed open access journal pub- relatively low rejection rate of 31%, its openness towards lished by the Public Library of Science since 2006. A sub- a multitude of different research areas, an internationally stantial characteristic of the journal is its thematic scope large peer review community, and its open access, a plu- which encompasses studies from any field of research con- rality of documents can be published in comparison with a cerning medicine as well as the broader area of science. A print-journal or other online periodicals. The results of the further distinctiveness is the journal’s management with evaluation indicate that PLOS ONE should be assessed from regards to the publication process since each submission numerous perspectives because there are a variety of indi- passes an internal and external pre-publication peer re- cators beyond the impact factor that can be made use of in view procedure and is hence not instantly rejected based order to evaluate exhaustively the standing of the journal as on a potential thematic niche area or an insufficiency of well as its prestige and impact. perceived significance. Christel Fein, Bachelor’s Degree student since October 2010, Institu- Methods te of Linguistics and Information Science, Heinrich-Heine-University, Duesseldorf, Germany. Email: [email protected] All 28,852 documents published in PLOS ONE during the This paper was prepared in October 2012 as part of the Seminar 5-year-period between 2007 and 2011 have been extracted on Empirical Information Science at the Institute of Linguistics from Web of Science®. This data provides the basis for the and Information Science, Heinrich-Heine-University, Duesseldorf, evaluation. The data concerning the conducted evalua- Germany. tion has been collected as well as analysed multidimen- sionally, to demonstrate more fully the complex structures and aspects of the impact, prestige and position of PLOS ONE, and to assess the information and data obtained as Introduction specifically as possible. Based on Juchem, Schlögl, and Stock (2006) and Haustein (2012), a framework of five In order to make an appropriate and exhaustive analysis dimensions of journal evaluation has been applied, in of the influence and impact of a scientific periodical, it is which each contains several metrics to analyse scientific not sufficient to use one single metric. Instead, it is neces- periodicals from various perspectives, i.e. journal output, 260 Christel Fein, Multidimensional Journal Evaluation of PLOS ONE DE GRUYTER journal content, journal perception, journal citations, and tributing authors, institutions as well as countries can be journal management. analysed. Concerning the names of the contributing au- In the following paper, each section focuses on one of thors, it is quite difficult on account of the homonymy and the above-mentioned dimensions in detail and describes synonymy problem to explicitly determine individual au- the relevant methods. Findings are presented in the Re- thors automatically (Smalheiser and Torvik 2009). Hence, sult and Discussion section. The first section deals with the investigation result regarding the contributing authors journal output, a dimension which assesses the publica- limits itself to the average number of authors per docu- tion output of the journal. Subsequently, an analysis of ment as well as document type, and to contributing coun- the content of PLOS ONE is carried out. The dimension tries, which can be determined without any problems be- of the content of a journal involves the thematic scope of cause of the fact that country names are controlled terms the publications within the periodical. To draw inferences in the Web of Science® database. from the reader perception of the journal, the dimension of journal perception gives some indication of the prestige and the impact of PLOS ONE within the scholarly commu- nity. Hence, it includes an assessment of the readership. Journal Content Following this, the findings of the dimension dealing with This dimension includes evaluations of the thematic field journal citations are depicted, and the paper shows how of the journal and the topical focus during the examined publications are used in PLOS ONE for formal scholarly time period. In general, the content of a journal is influ- communication via citations. Finally, a section on journal enced significantly by the editors and the peer reviewers. management addresses issues concerned with the man- agement of the periodical and investigates important facts Too often a journal’s decision to publish a paper is dominated relating to editors, publishers, the review process, and by what the editors think is interesting and will gain greater publication history (Haustein 2012). Because of space lim- readership — both of which are subjective judgments and lead itations of this work, the selection of the discussed data is to decisions which are frustrating and delay the publication of your work. PLOS ONE will rigorously peer-review your narrowed down to major findings. Completing this work, a submissions and publish all papers that are judged to be conclusion summarises the conducted evaluation consid- technically sound. Judgments about the importance of any ering all dimensions, and a final valuation of the impact of particular paper are then made after publication by the the scientific journal PLOS ONE is made. readership. (PLOS ONE 2013) Because PLOS ONE has an international peer review pan- el, and only rejects less than one third of all documents Journal Output submitted, it generally does not exclude manuscripts on the basis of content. One characteristic feature of the jour- This section focuses on the assessment of the scientific nal is that it does not limit itself to a certain scientific field journal PLOS ONE with regards to its publication output. and permits publication of research on topics outside and The data set under evaluation has been limited to the Web between conventional science branches. of Science® coverage of the journal’s publications be- For analysing and illustrating PLOS ONE’s journal tween 2007 and 2011. Therefore, 28,852 documents have content, the documents’ topics have been extracted from been analysed. As Tenopir and King (2009) described it, the Web of Science® dataset and analysed with regards the electronic publishing and the notable growth of sci- to their frequency and change from 2007 to 2011. By com- entific communication have contributed to an increase of paring the content across time, specific words can be re- journal output and single indicator scores. For the pur- vealed which have been the predominant subjects in the poses of this evaluation, the output of PLOS ONE has been documents. Furthermore, progress and the emergence of analysed with respect to the frequency of publication, the research fields can be observed and described by analys- number of issues published within one year, and the fre- ing the content (Chen et al. 2008). The assessment of the quency of publication of various document types, as well document titles was conducted with the free online tool as the average publication length. ‘Wordle.’ A word cloud provides an illustrative impression Furthermore, the output of the journal is influenced of the major subjects of PLOS ONE’s publications in which by the contributing authors as the actual producers of the the font size of a word correlates with its frequency of oc- publication output. The evaluation can be conducted on currence (Peters 2009). Hence, a more frequently used a micro-, meso-, and macro-level, meaning that the con- word has a larger depiction in the word cloud. DE GRUYTER Christel
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Realized Benefits from Bioprospecting in the Wake of the Convention on Biological Diversity
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Washington University St. Louis: Open Scholarship Washington University Journal of Law & Policy Volume 47 Intellectual Property: From Biodiversity to Technical Standards 2015 The Realized Benefits from Bioprospecting in the Wake of the Convention on Biological Diversity James S. Miller Missouri Botanical Garden Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy Part of the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons, Environmental Law Commons, and the Plant Sciences Commons Recommended Citation James S. Miller, The Realized Benefits from Bioprospecting in the Wake of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 47 WASH. U. J. L. & POL’Y 051 (2015), https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy/vol47/iss1/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Journal of Law & Policy by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Realized Benefits from Bioprospecting in the Wake of the Convention on Biological Diversity James S. Miller MISSOURI BOTANICAL GARDEN In the mid-1980s, the convergence of several technological advances led to a serious resurgence of interest in surveying plant species for drug development. The emergence of methods to miniaturize in-vitro bioassays (a test used to quantify the biological effect of a chemical compound or extract against a specific disease target) run the bioassays with robotic equipment, and isolate and identify active compounds with a speed and precision never before possible.
    [Show full text]
  • When Is Open Access Not Open Access?
    Editorial When Is Open Access Not Open Access? Catriona J. MacCallum ince 2003, when PLoS Biology Box 1. The Bethesda Statement on Open-Access Publishing was launched, there has been This is taken from http:⁄⁄www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm. a spectacular growth in “open- S 1 access” journals. The Directory of An Open Access Publication is one that meets the following two conditions: Open Access Journals (http:⁄⁄www. 1. The author(s) and copyright holder(s) grant(s) to all users a free, irrevocable, doaj.org/), hosted by Lund University worldwide, perpetual right of access to, and a license to copy, use, distribute, transmit Libraries, lists 2,816 open-access and display the work publicly and to make and distribute derivative works, in any digital journals as this article goes to press medium for any responsible purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship2, as (and probably more by the time you well as the right to make small numbers of printed copies for their personal use. read this). Authors also have various 2. A complete version of the work and all supplemental materials, including a copy of “open-access” options within existing the permission as stated above, in a suitable standard electronic format is deposited subscription journals offered by immediately upon initial publication in at least one online repository that is supported traditional publishers (e.g., Blackwell, by an academic institution, scholarly society, government agency, or other well- Springer, Oxford University Press, and established organization that seeks to enable open access, unrestricted distribution, many others). In return for a fee to interoperability, and long-term archiving (for the biomedical sciences, PubMed Central the publisher, an author’s individual is such a repository).
    [Show full text]
  • From Coalition to Commons: Plan S and the Future of Scholarly Communication
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc. Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln 2019 From Coalition to Commons: Plan S and the Future of Scholarly Communication Rob Johnson Research Consulting Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons, Scholarly Communication Commons, and the Scholarly Publishing Commons Johnson, Rob, "From Coalition to Commons: Plan S and the Future of Scholarly Communication" (2019). Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc.. 157. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom/157 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc. by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Insights – 32, 2019 Plan S and the future of scholarly communication | Rob Johnson From coalition to commons: Plan S and the future of scholarly communication The announcement of Plan S in September 2018 triggered a wide-ranging debate over how best to accelerate the shift to open access. The Plan’s ten principles represent a call for the creation of an intellectual commons, to be brought into being through collective action by funders and managed through regulated market mechanisms. As it gathers both momentum and critics, the coalition must grapple with questions of equity, efficiency and sustainability. The work of Elinor Ostrom has shown that successful management of the commons frequently relies on polycentricity and adaptive governance. The Plan S principles must therefore function as an overarching framework within which local actors retain some autonomy, and should remain open to amendment as the scholarly communication landscape evolves.
    [Show full text]
  • A Critique of John Stuart Mill Chris Daly
    Southern Illinois University Carbondale OpenSIUC Honors Theses University Honors Program 5-2002 The Boundaries of Liberalism in a Global Era: A Critique of John Stuart Mill Chris Daly Follow this and additional works at: http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/uhp_theses Recommended Citation Daly, Chris, "The Boundaries of Liberalism in a Global Era: A Critique of John Stuart Mill" (2002). Honors Theses. Paper 131. This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the University Honors Program at OpenSIUC. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of OpenSIUC. For more information, please contact [email protected]. r The Boundaries of Liberalism in a Global Era: A Critique of John Stuart Mill Chris Daly May 8, 2002 r ABSTRACT The following study exanunes three works of John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, Utilitarianism, and Three Essays on Religion, and their subsequent effects on liberalism. Comparing the notion on individual freedom espoused in On Liberty to the notion of the social welfare in Utilitarianism, this analysis posits that it is impossible for a political philosophy to have two ultimate ends. Thus, Mill's liberalism is inherently flawed. As this philosophy was the foundation of Mill's progressive vision for humanity that he discusses in his Three Essays on Religion, this vision becomes paradoxical as well. Contending that the neo-liberalist global economic order is the contemporary parallel for Mill's religion of humanity, this work further demonstrates how these philosophical flaws have spread to infect the core of globalization in the 21 st century as well as their implications for future international relations.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Access Publishing
    Open Access The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Suber, Peter. 2012. Open access. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. [Updates and Supplements: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/hoap/ Open_Access_(the_book)] Published Version http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/open-access Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:10752204 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA OPEN ACCESS The MIT Press Essential Knowledge Series Information and the Modern Corporation, James Cortada Intellectual Property Strategy, John Palfrey Open Access, Peter Suber OPEN ACCESS PETER SUBER TheMIT Press | Cambridge, Massachusetts | London, England © 2012 Massachusetts Institute of Technology This work is licensed under the Creative Commons licenses noted below. To view a copy of these licenses, visit creativecommons.org. Other than as provided by these licenses, no part of this book may be reproduced, transmitted, or displayed by any electronic or mechanical means without permission from the publisher or as permitted by law. This book incorporates certain materials previously published under a CC-BY license and copyright in those underlying materials is owned by SPARC. Those materials remain under the CC-BY license. Effective June 15, 2013, this book will be subject to a CC-BY-NC license. MIT Press books may be purchased at special quantity discounts for business or sales promotional use.
    [Show full text]
  • Will Sci-Hub Kill the Open Access Citation Advantage and (At Least for Now) Save Toll Access Journals?
    Will Sci-Hub Kill the Open Access Citation Advantage and (at least for now) Save Toll Access Journals? David W. Lewis October 2016 © 2016 David W. Lewis. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Introduction It is a generally accepted fact that open access journal articles enjoy a citation advantage.1 This citation advantage results from the fact that open access journal articles are available to everyone in the word with an Internet collection. Thus, anyone with an interest in the work can find it and use it easily with no out-of-pocket cost. This use leads to citations. Articles in toll access journals on the other hand, are locked behind paywalls and are only available to those associated with institutions who can afford the subscription costs, or who are willing and able to purchase individual articles for $30 or more. There has always been some slippage in the toll access journal system because of informal sharing of articles. Authors will usually send copies of their work to those who ask and sometime post them on their websites even when this is not allowable under publisher’s agreements. Stevan Harnad and his colleagues proposed making this type of author sharing a standard semi-automated feature for closed articles in institutional repositories.2 The hashtag #ICanHazPDF can be used to broadcast a request for an article that an individual does not have access to.3 Increasingly, toll access articles are required by funder mandates to be made publically available, though usually after an embargo period.
    [Show full text]
  • Google Scholar, Sci-Hub and Libgen: Could They Be Our New Partners?
    Purdue University Purdue e-Pubs Proceedings of the IATUL Conferences 2017 IATUL Proceedings Google Scholar, Sci-Hub and LibGen: Could they be our New Partners? Louis Houle McGill University, [email protected] Louis Houle, "Google Scholar, Sci-Hub and LibGen: Could they be our New Partners?." Proceedings of the IATUL Conferences. Paper 3. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/iatul/2017/partnership/3 This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact [email protected] for additional information. GOOGLE SCHOLAR, SCI-HUB AND LIBGEN: COULD THEY BE OUR NEW PARTNERS? Louis Houle McGill University Canada [email protected] Abstract Since its debut I November 2004, librarians have raised several criticisms at Google Scholar (GS) such as its inconsistency of coverage and its currency and scope of coverage. It may have been true in the early years of Google Scholar but is this still through twelve years after? Is this sufficient to ignore it totally either in our information literacy programs or evaluate its value against the values of subscription-based abstracts and indexes? In this era of severe budget constraints that libraries are facing, can we imagine of substituting most or all of our subject databases with the free access of Google Scholar for discoverability? How much overlap between our databases and Google Scholar? How reliable is Google Scholar? How stable is its content over time? Open Access is getting to be the predominant form of getting access to peer reviewed articles. Many new non-traditional tools (institutional repositories, social media and peer to peer sites) are available out there to retrieve the full-text of peer reviewed articles.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploratory Analysis of Publons Metrics and Their Relationship with Bibliometric and Altmetric Impact
    Exploratory analysis of Publons metrics and their relationship with bibliometric and altmetric impact José Luis Ortega Institute for Advanced Social Studies (IESA-CSIC), Córdoba, Spain, [email protected] Abstract Purpose: This study aims to analyse the metrics provided by Publons about the scoring of publications and their relationship with impact measurements (bibliometric and altmetric indicators). Design/methodology/approach: In January 2018, 45,819 research articles were extracted from Publons, including all their metrics (scores, number of pre and post reviews, reviewers, etc.). Using the DOI identifier, other metrics from altmetric providers were gathered to compare the scores of those publications in Publons with their bibliometric and altmetric impact in PlumX, Altmetric.com and Crossref Event Data (CED). Findings: The results show that (1) there are important biases in the coverage of Publons according to disciplines and publishers; (2) metrics from Publons present several problems as research evaluation indicators; and (3) correlations between bibliometric and altmetric counts and the Publons metrics are very weak (r<.2) and not significant. Originality/value: This is the first study about the Publons metrics at article level and their relationship with other quantitative measures such as bibliometric and altmetric indicators. Keywords: Publons, Altmetrics, Bibliometrics, Peer-review 1. Introduction Traditionally, peer-review has been the most appropriate way to validate scientific advances. Since the first beginning of the scientific revolution, scientific theories and discoveries were discussed and agreed by the research community, as a way to confirm and accept new knowledge. This validation process has arrived until our days as a suitable tool for accepting the most relevant manuscripts to academic journals, allocating research funds or selecting and promoting scientific staff.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Relation Between the Wos Impact Factor, the Eigenfactor, the Scimago Journal Rank, the Article Influence Score and the Journal H-Index
    1 On the relation between the WoS impact factor, the Eigenfactor, the SCImago Journal Rank, the Article Influence Score and the journal h-index Ronald ROUSSEAU 1 and the STIMULATE 8 GROUP 2 1 KHBO, Dept. Industrial Sciences and Technology, Oostende, Belgium [email protected] 2Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium The STIMULATE 8 Group consists of: Anne Sylvia ACHOM (Uganda), Helen Hagos BERHE (Ethiopia), Sangeeta Namdev DHAMDHERE (India), Alicia ESGUERRA (The Philippines), Nguyen Thi Ngoc HOAN (Vietnam), John KIYAGA (Uganda), Sheldon Miti MAPONGA (Zimbabwe), Yohannis MARTÍ- LAHERA (Cuba), Kelefa Tende MWANTIMWA (Tanzania), Marlon G. OMPOC (The Philippines), A.I.M. Jakaria RAHMAN (Bangladesh), Bahiru Shifaw YIMER (Ethiopia). Abstract Four alternatives to the journal Impact Factor (IF) indicator are compared to find out their similarities. Together with the IF, the SCImago Journal Rank indicator (SJR), the EigenfactorTM score, the Article InfluenceTM score and the journal h- index of 77 journals from more than ten fields were collected. Results show that although those indicators are calculated with different methods and even use different databases, they are strongly correlated with the WoS IF and among each other. These findings corroborate results published by several colleagues and show the feasibility of using free alternatives to the Web of Science for evaluating scientific journals. Keywords: WoS impact factor, Eigenfactor, SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), Article Influence Score, journal h-index, correlations Introduction STIMULATE stands for Scientific and Technological Information Management in Universities and Libraries: an Active Training Environment. It is an international training programme in information management, supported by the Flemish Interuniversity Council (VLIR), aiming at young scientists and professionals from 2 developing countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Access, Open Education and Open Data
    IFMSA Policy Proposal OpenAccess, OpenEducation and OpenData Proposed by Team of Officials Presented to the IFMSA General Assembly August Meeting 2017 in Arusha, Tanzania Policy Commission • Eleanor Parkhill, Medsin-UK, [email protected] • Kim van Daalen, IFMSA-The-Netherlands, ifmsa-the- [email protected] • Alexander Lachapelle, Liaison Officer for Medical Education issues, IFMSA, [email protected] Policy Statement Introduction Scholarly material is essential for research and education. Committing to making high value scientific knowledge accessible to researchers, scientists, entrepreneurs, and policy makers worldwide is a major step towards better health outcomes for all. Yet, cost barriers or use restrictions often prevent health professionals worldwide - and scientists from all areas - from engaging or consulting the very materials that report scientific discovery. Over the past decade, Open Access, Open Education & Open data have become central to advancing the interests of researchers, scholars, students, businesses and the public. Yet, while consulting academic journals, students face limited access to published research output, data and papers because of very high fees. The high cost of academic journals restricts the use of knowledge. A vast amount of research is funded from public sources – yet taxpayers are locked out by the cost of access. IFMSA Position The International Federation of Medical Students’ Associations (IFMSA) firmly believes in the importance of openness across all published research outputs (including among others, all online research output, peer-review and non-peer-reviewed academic journal articles, conference papers, theses, book chapters, monographs). Thereby IFMSA believes in the ability of openness to improve the educational experience, democratize access to research and education, advance research and education, and improve the visibility and impact of scholarship.
    [Show full text]
  • Do You Speak Open Science? Resources and Tips to Learn the Language
    Do You Speak Open Science? Resources and Tips to Learn the Language. Paola Masuzzo1, 2 - ORCID: 0000-0003-3699-1195, Lennart Martens1,2 - ORCID: 0000- 0003-4277-658X Author Affiliation 1 Medical Biotechnology Center, VIB, Ghent, Belgium 2 Department of Biochemistry, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium Abstract The internet era, large-scale computing and storage resources, mobile devices, social media, and their high uptake among different groups of people, have all deeply changed the way knowledge is created, communicated, and further deployed. These advances have enabled a radical transformation of the practice of science, which is now more open, more global and collaborative, and closer to society than ever. Open science has therefore become an increasingly important topic. Moreover, as open science is actively pursued by several high-profile funders and institutions, it has fast become a crucial matter to all researchers. However, because this widespread interest in open science has emerged relatively recently, its definition and implementation are constantly shifting and evolving, sometimes leaving researchers in doubt about how to adopt open science, and which are the best practices to follow. This article therefore aims to be a field guide for scientists who want to perform science in the open, offering resources and tips to make open science happen in the four key areas of data, code, publications and peer-review. The Rationale for Open Science: Standing on the Shoulders of Giants One of the most widely used definitions of open science originates from Michael Nielsen [1]: “Open science is the idea that scientific knowledge of all kinds should be openly shared as early as is practical in the discovery process”.
    [Show full text]
  • How Should Peer-Review Panels Behave? IZA DP No
    IZA DP No. 7024 How Should Peer-Review Panels Behave? Daniel Sgroi Andrew J. Oswald November 2012 DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit Institute for the Study of Labor How Should Peer-Review Panels Behave? Daniel Sgroi University of Warwick Andrew J. Oswald University of Warwick and IZA Discussion Paper No. 7024 November 2012 IZA P.O. Box 7240 53072 Bonn Germany Phone: +49-228-3894-0 Fax: +49-228-3894-180 E-mail: [email protected] Any opinions expressed here are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in this series may include views on policy, but the institute itself takes no institutional policy positions. The IZA research network is committed to the IZA Guiding Principles of Research Integrity. The Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) in Bonn is a local and virtual international research center and a place of communication between science, politics and business. IZA is an independent nonprofit organization supported by Deutsche Post Foundation. The center is associated with the University of Bonn and offers a stimulating research environment through its international network, workshops and conferences, data service, project support, research visits and doctoral program. IZA engages in (i) original and internationally competitive research in all fields of labor economics, (ii) development of policy concepts, and (iii) dissemination of research results and concepts to the interested public. IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be available directly from the author.
    [Show full text]