Advertisement

Publishing Research Quarterly

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 39–49 | Cite as

Peer Review and Scientific Publishing in Times of Web 2.0

  • Lucia Vesnic-AlujevicEmail author
Article

Abstract

The second half of the twentieth century brought major changes in the society and consequently in the different areas of the sciences. The growing number of universities after the second world war, the post-war industrial growth and later digitalization transformed the sciences present until then, enlarged the scientific community and the number of scientific publications. In the last couple of decades, the creation of web 2.0 brought new possibilities for knowledge co-production, interaction and exchange between all interested parties in research. The goal of this paper is to explore the possibilities for (extended) peer review and quality control on the internet, primarily blogs and social media, which could contribute to the standard peer review process and open the sciences to a wider audience. We are wondering if these processes could also raise the quality in science and lead to the democratization of knowledge production. We argue that changes in science also have an impact in reshaping the society and bringing democratization in knowledge production.

Keywords

Peer review Internet Online publishing Social media Social networks Online quality control Open peer review 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author thanks Prof. Silvio Funtowicz who contributed to this paper with his valuable comments and by sharing his knowledge with the author.

References

  1. 1.
    Arms, W What are the alternatives to peer review? Quality control in scholarly publishing on the web. J Electron Publ. 2002;8:1 Accessed 2 July 2013. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=jep;view=text;rgn=main;idno=3336451.0008.103.
  2. 2.
    Bentivegna S. Rethinking politics in the world of ICTs. Eur J Commun. 2006;21(3):331–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brumfiel, G. Peer review reviewed, Nature News Blog, September 8, 2009, http://blogs.nature.com/news/2009/09/peer_review_reviewed.html.
  4. 4.
    Cammaerts B, Carpentier N. Introduction. In: Cammaerts B, Carpentier N, editors. Reclaming the media: communication rights and democratic media roles. Bristol: Intellect books; 2007. p. XI–XVIII.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chang A. Online journals challenge scientific peer review, Mercury News, October 2, 2006, http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/15655422.htm.
  6. 6.
    Daniels J, Feagin J. The (coming) social media revolution in the academy. Fast Capital. 2011;8:2 Accessed 2 July 2013. http://www.uta.edu/huma/agger/fastcapitalism/8_2/Daniels8_2.html.
  7. 7.
    Debate. Peer Review, Nature, December 2006, http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/index.html.
  8. 8.
    Funtowicz S. Peer review and quality control. In: Encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier; pp. 11179–11183; 2001.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hermida A. Social media is inherently a system of peer evaluation and is changing the way scholars disseminate their research, raising questions about the way we evaluate academic authority, LSE Blogs, June 27, 2011, http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2011/06/27/social-media-is-inherently-a-system-of-peer-evaluation-and-is-changing-the-way-scholars-disseminate-their-research-raising-questions-about-the-way-we-evaluate-academic-authority/.
  10. 10.
    Margolis M, Resnick D. Politics as usual: the “cyberspace revolution”. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2000.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    McQuail D. Media performance: mass communication and the public interest. London: Sage; 1992.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pickard KT. The impact of open access and social media on scientific research. J Particip Med. 2012;4:e15. http://www.jopm.org/opinion/commentary/2012/07/18/the-impact-of-open-access-and-social-media-on-scientific-research/.
  13. 13.
    Ravetz J, Funtowicz S. New forms of science. In: International encyclopedia of social and behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier (in press).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Singer J. New media, new scholarship debate. Publish (and be popular) or perish. J Stud. 2008;9(4):599–604.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Solomon D. The role of peer review for scholarly journals in the information age. J Electron Publ. 2007;10:1. Accessed 18 July 2013. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=jep;view=text;rgn=main;idno=3336451.0010.107.
  16. 16.
    Stromer-Galley J. Will internet voting increase turnout? In: Howard P, Jones S, editors. Society online: the internet in context. Thousand Oakes: Sage Publications; 2004. p. 87–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers’ recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ. 1999;318(7175):23–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Walker T. The future of scientific journals: free access or pay per view? Am Entomol. 1998;44:135–8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Joint Research Centre, European Commission; © European Union 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Joint Research Centre, Institute for the Protection and Security of the CitizenEuropean CommissionIspraItaly

Personalised recommendations