This is a multi-venue event (see directions and recommendations about accommodation at www.peere.org/conference/venue).
You can download the tentative programme in PDF here.
Wednesday, 11 March 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, 12 March 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||Panel: Challenges of sharing data on peer review|
Organizer: Flaminio Squazzoni
|11:00 – 11:30||Coffee break|
|11:30 – 13:30||Session 2: 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 – 16:20||Session 3: 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.
|16:20 – 18:20||Session 4: Peer review metrics and data analysis|
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.
- Who reviews for predatory and legitimate journals? A study on reviewer characteristics. Anna Severin, Michaela Strinzel, Marc Domingo and Tiago Barros.
- 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.
- Behind the scenes: An historical analysis of peer review at the Royal Society journals. Aileen Fyfe, Niccolò Casnici, Flaminio Squazzoni, Pierpaolo Dondio
- Peer review of doctoral dissertations: Gender differences in getting cum laude. Peter Van Den Besselaar, Charlie Mom and Tijs Van den Broek.
|18:20 – 21:00||Free time|
|21:00||Social dinner – Convent Carme|
Friday, 13 March 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.
|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|