Academia.edu crowdsources speedy peer review solution

PaperRank service will allow researchers to rate papers online in bid to accelerate and open up process

November 5, 2015
Crowd at music festival

An academic social network is aiming to transform the peer review process using crowdsourcing.

Academia.edu has launched a service called PaperRank, which gives each article on the site a score based on how many recommendations it has received from other researchers.

This rating is weighted by the reputation of the scholar doing the recommending, which is calculated using the scores of their own articles.

The highest scoring papers will then be promoted to other scholars with similar research interests.

At first, the website is allowing 2,000 “editors” to rate papers, allowing researchers’ reputations on the site to develop gradually. These individuals must have experience of being journal editors and must be experts in their field.

But, in the longer term, the website hopes to allow all of its 27 million members to rate papers.

Richard Price, the founder and chief executive of Academia.edu, said that PaperRank would dramatically increase the number of peer reviews that a paper receives.

“The role of journal editors traditionally has been to find two reviewers who will read the paper and do a good job,” said Dr Price, a Briton who studied for a DPhil in philosophy at All Souls College, Oxford. “Our thought is, can you use the network to share the paper with a very large number of people who are experts in the field and let it find its home.”

To recommend a paper, an academic has to declare that they have read the paper, and that it is a worthwhile contribution to the field.

Dr Price said that the recommendation process should be effective within weeks, rather than the traditional journal peer review process which took, he said, an average of 12 months.

He rejected suggestions that PaperRank would be reduced to a popularity contest, arguing that the fact recommendations would be publically recorded meant that there was more reputational risk to gaming the system.

“In the current system you have to do the bidding of two peer reviewers and the editor,” Dr Price said. “In this model it is more agile and more democratic, because you can get a paper out and find people around the world for whom your paper is interesting.

“I think it means the field can move more dynamically when the ‘gatekeeper’ model becomes more of an open system.”

chris.havergal@tesglobal.com

You've reached your article limit.

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

Reader's comments (1)

Could we "stress test" this with some post-modern philosophy papers?

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Most Commented

James Fryer illustration (27 July 2017)

It is not Luddism to be cautious about destroying an academic publishing industry that has served us well, says Marilyn Deegan

Jeffrey Beall, associate professor and librarian at the University of Colorado Denver

Creator of controversial predatory journals blacklist says some peers are failing to warn of dangers of disreputable publishers

Kayaker and jet skiiers

Nazima Kadir’s social circle reveals a range of alternative careers for would-be scholars, and often with better rewards than academia

Hand squeezing stress ball
Working 55 hours per week, the loss of research periods, slashed pensions, increased bureaucracy, tiny budgets and declining standards have finally forced Michael Edwards out
hole in ground

‘Drastic action’ required to fix multibillion-pound shortfall in Universities Superannuation Scheme, expert warns