Unfortunately, the 2nd PEERE International Conference on Peer Review 2020 needs to be postponed to mitigate the spread of Covid-19. The new dates are 30 September – 2 October 2020. We are very sorry for the inconvenience.
This is a multi-venue event (see directions and recommendations about accommodation at www.peere.org/conference/venue).
Are you attending the conference? Please, fill in the following form to help us with the organization of special meal requirements.
You can download the tentative programme in PDF here.
Wednesday, 30 September 2020
Venue: La Nau Cultural Center, University of Valencia
How to get there: www.peere.org/conference/venue/#lanau
|8:30 – 9:00||Registration|
|9:00 – 9:30||Opening session|
|9:30 – 10:30||Sara Schroter (BMJ): Researching peer review in biomedical journals: more collaborative cross-journal research is needed|
|10:30 – 11:00||Coffee break|
|11:00 – 13:00||Session 1: Peer review procedures & trials|
Chair: Bahar Mehmani, Elsevier
- Peer Review Procedures as Practice, Decision, and Governance – Preliminaries to Theories of Peer Review. Martin Reinhart and Cornelia Schendzielorz.
- Journal guidelines: What they can and cannot do. Serge Horbach, Wytske Hepkema, Joyce Hoek and Willem Halffman.
- Effect of an editorial intervention to improve the completeness of reporting of randomised trials: a randomised controlled trial. David Blanco, Sara Schroter, Adrian Aldcroft, David Moher, Isabelle Boutron, Jamie Kirkham and Erik Cobo.
- Results from a peer-review trial at eLife. Emma Smith and Andy Collings.
- Optional Published Peer Review at PLOS: First findings of a new peer review model rolled out at scale. Iratxe Puebla, Katie Hickling, Jarrett Thibodeaux and Geno Urbano.
- Do Words Matter? Increasing buy-in by building trust with peer reviewers on Publons and ORCID. Imogen Rose, Katie Allin, Uwe Schwab, Matthew Hayes and Edmund Gerstner.
|13:00 – 15:30||Lunch + Feel Mascletà Experience|
|15:30 – 15:45||Judith Bar-Ilan Memorial Session|
Organizer: Elise S. Brezis, Bar-Ilan University
|15:45 – 16:30||Lightning session 1|
Chair: Francisco Grimaldo, University of Valencia
- Software scaffolds for quality feedback in peer review. Oscar Diaz, Jeremías P. Contell and Haritz Medina.
- The challenges of finding peer reviewers: insights from our product design research. Antonio Tenorio Fornés and Elena Pérez Tirador.
- Determining Academic and Economic Legitimacy in Academic Publishing: Peer Review and the Spectrum of Predatory Publishing. Kyle Siler.
- Peer Review in Legal journals. Jadranka Stojanovski, Ginevra Peruginelli and Elias Sanz-Casado.
- Feedback to improve inter-rater reliability in grant peer review: A randomized controlled trial. Jan-Ole Hesselberg and Ida Svege.
- In Review: a Springer Nature initiative integrating preprints with journal peer review offering speed, quality control and transparency. Sowmya Swaminathan, Rachel Burley, Juliet Kaplan and Vic Vijayakumar.
- Introducing a Data Accessibility Policy for journals at IOP Publishing: Measuring the impact on authors and editorial teams. Jade Holt and Andrew Walker.
- Evaluating an editorial intervention to reduce spin in the abstract conclusion of manuscripts: a randomized controlled trial. Mona Ghannad, Bada Yang, Mariska Leeflang, Adrian Aldcroft, Patrick Bossuyt, Sara Schroter and Isabelle Boutron.
|16:30 – 17:45||Panel: Remodeling peer review in light of preprints|
Organizer: Jessica Polka, Executive Director, ASAPbio
Panelists: Xenia van Edig (Copernicus), Iratxe Puebla (PLOS), Sowmya Swaminathan (Springer Nature), Marjolaine Hamelin (PCI), Thomas Lemberger (EMBO, Review Commons)
|17:45 – 18:30||Poster session|
|18:30 – 20:30||Social event|
|20:30||Welcome cocktail – Ciutat de les Arts i de les Ciències|
Thursday, 1 October 2020
Venue: School of Engineering, University of Valencia
How to get there: www.peere.org/conference/venue/#etseuv
|9:30 – 10:00||Registration|
|10:00 – 11:00||Session 2: Peer review metrics and data analysis I|
Chair: Flaminio Squazzoni, University of Milan
- Who reviews for predatory and legitimate journals? A study on reviewer characteristics. Anna Severin, Michaela Strinzel, Marc Domingo and Tiago Barros.
- Too many big fishes in the peer review pond? An analysis of authors’ contribution to peer review in a sample of 157 scholarly journal. Mike Farjam, Giangiacomo Bravo, Francisco Grimaldo, Flaminio Squazzoni.
- Peer review of doctoral dissertations: Gender differences in getting cum laude. Peter Van Den Besselaar, Charlie Mom and Tijs Van den Broek.
|11:00 – 11:30||Coffee break|
|11:30 – 13:30||Session 3: Peer review of grant proposals|
Chair: Marco Seeber, University of Agder
- Peer Reviews’ Prediction in Proposals’ Funding Success: A Sentiment Analysis of Grant Reviews. Junwen Luo, Olalere Alabi, Thomas Feliciani, Pablo Lucas and Kalpana Shankar.
- How to improve the quality of grant proposal review? The exercise of responsible peer review in Taiwan. Carey Ming-Li Chen, Wen-Chi Hung and Kai-Lin Chi.
- Local versus global inter-rater reliability for evaluating the internal validity of grant peer review: Considerations of measurement. Elena A. Erosheva, Patrícia Martinková and Carole J. Lee.
- Predictors of grant proposal success in H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Action: a cross sectional study. Ivan Buljan, David Pina and Ana Marušić.
- Meta Research: Ethics assessment of H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie individual fellowships. Ivan Buljan, David Pina and Ana Marušić.
- Is the value of interdisciplinary research proposals more contested? Insights from Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions and COST actions. Marco Seeber, Jef Vlegels, David Pina, Elwin Reimink and Ana Marušić.
|13:30 – 15:00||Lunch|
|15:00 – 16:40||Session 4: Computational studies of peer review|
Chairs: Simone Righi (University College London) + Karoly Takacs (Linköping University)
- Challenges in Using Bibliometric Indicators to Assess Peer Review Decisions: A Simulation Model. Kwun Hang Lai, Ludo Waltman and Vincent Traag.
- Hacking one’s way to peer-review. Gayanga B. Herath, Davide Secchi and Stephen J. Cowley.
- Does social influence matter in peer review? Thomas Feliciani, Kalpana Shankar, Pablo Lucas and Junwen Luo.
- Honest Signaling in Academic Publishing. Leonid Tiokhin, Karthik Panchanathan, Daniel Lakens, Simine Vazire, Thomas Morgan and Kevin Zollman.
- Journal Competition and the Sustainability of Peer Review: An Agent-Based Model. Carmen Ibanescu, Simone Righi, Karoly Takacs and Elena Vallino.
|16:40 – 18:00||Session 5: Peer review metrics and data analysis II|
Chair: Ana Marušić, University of Split
- Can we reduce arbitrariness in Peer Review? Yes: By reducing variance among reviewers. Elise Brezis.
- Peer reviewers’ opinions: low agreement in every dimension of internally consistent reports. Judith Hartstein.
- Metrics and peer review agreement at the institutional level. Vincent Antonio Traag, Marco Malgarini and Scipione Sarlo.
- Tracking the developmental value of peer review in a sample of scholarly journals from the Royal Society, 2006-2016. Daniel Garcia-Costa, Federico Bianchi, Francisco Grimaldo, Phil Hurst, Flaminio Squazzoni.
|18:00 – 21:00||Free time|
|21:00||Social dinner – Convent Carme|
Friday, 2 October 2020
Venue: Botanical Garden, University of Valencia
How to get there: www.peere.org/conference/venue/#botanic
|9:30 – 10:15||Lightning session 2|
Chair: Jadranka Stojanovski, University of Zadar
- A Content Exploration of Reviewers’ Comments in FP7 Marie Curie ITN evaluation reports. Darko Hren, David Pina, Cristopher Norman and Ana Marusic.
- “Is someone out to get me?”: Molecular biology tested by PostPublication Peer Review. Michel Dubois and Catherine Guaspare.
- Platform for Responsible Editorial Policies. Wytske Hepkema, Serge Horbach and Willem Halffman.
- A comparative exploration of quality in peer review across disciplines: Marine Science, Chemistry and Public Health. Judyta Sorowkowska-Yammin and Holly Tyler.
- Decision-making approaches to grant funding allocation: insights from a realist synthesis. Alejandra Recio-Saucedo, Ksenia Kurbatskaya, Kathryn Fackrell, Katie Meadmore, Abby Bull, Simon Fraser and Amanda Blatch-Jones.
- Identification and comparison of key criteria of funding decision feedback to applicants: A funder and applicant perspective. Kathryn Fackrell, Katie Meadmore, Alejandra Recio Saucedo, Abby Bull, Ksenia Kurbatskaya, Simon Fraser and Amanda Blatch-Jones.
- Researcher perspectives on the grant peer review process. Matthew Hayes and James Hardcastle.
- Statistics in Peer Reviewed Journals. Anabel Forte, Daniel García-Costa, Emilia López-Iñesta, Flaminio Squazzoni, Francisco Grimaldo.
|10:15 – 11:00||Poster session + Coffee break|
|11:00 – 13:00||Session 6: Peering into peer review|
Chair: Peter Van Den Besselaar, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
- Open review standards & pilots. Joris van Rossum.
- Assessing the impact of public reviewer recognition: results from a three-year trial. Ritu Dhand, Mithu Lucraft and Gregory Goodey.
- Investigation of moral bias in peer review using large-scale linguistic analysis approach. Ivan Buljan, Daniel Garcia-Costa, Francisco Grimaldo, Flaminio Squazzoni and Ana Marušić.
- Changing the shoulders I am standing on! Describing the changes that occurred in publications’ reference lists after peer review. Aliakbar Akbaritabar, Dimity Stephen, Judith Hartstein and Christophe Heger.
- Psychometric testing of ARCADIA, a tool for assessing peer review report quality in biomedical research. Cecilia Superchi, Ketevan Glonti, Sara Schroter, Josep Anton Sànchez Espigares, Alessandro Recchioni, Darko Hren, Isabelle Boutron and José Antonio González.
- Improving gender equity and diversity at Lancet journals. Joan Marsh, Jocalyn Clark, Ashley Cooper and Ludmila M. Sheytanova.
|13:00 – 13:30||Closing session: A glimpse into the future of peer review|
|13:30 – 15:00||Farewell meal|