2012 tube com

Замечательно! думаю, 2012 tube com вчера посмотрел

This should be highly appealing not just to researchers, but also to those in charge of hiring, tenure, promotion, grant funding, 2012 tube com review and research assessment, and therefore could become an important ipf info in future policy development.

Models like Stack Exchange are ideal candidates for such a system, because achievement of certification takes place via a process of community engagement and can be quantified through a simple and transparent up-voting and down-voting scheme, combined with achievement badges.

Any outputs from assessment could be portable and applied to ORCID profiles, external webpages, and continuously updated and refined through further activity.

As this is decoupled from Methyltestosterone Tablets, USP (Methitest)- FDA, it alleviates all of the well-known pericarditis with journal-based ranking systems (e.

By combining this with moderation, as outlined above, gaming can also be prevented (e. Integrating a blockchain-based token system could also reduce potential for such gaming. Most importantly though, is that the research communities, and engagement within them, form the basis of certification, and reputation should evolve continuously with this. Incentives are broadly seen to be required to motivate and encourage wider participation and engagement with peer review.

As such, this requires finding the sweet spot between lowering the threshold of entry for different research communities, while providing maximum reward. One of the most widely-held reasons for researchers to perform peer review is a shared sense of academic altruism or duty to their respective community (e.

Despite this natural incentive to engage with the process, it is still clear that the process is imbalanced and researchers feel that 2012 tube com still receive far too little credit as a way of recognizing their efforts. Incentives, therefore, need not just encourage engagement with peer review, but with it in a way that is of most value to research communities through high quality, constructive feedback. This then demands transparency of the process, and becomes directly tied to certification and reputation, as above, which is the ultimate goal of any incentive system.

New ways of incentivizing peer review can be developed by quantifying engagement with the process and tying this in to academic profiles, such as ORCID. To some extent this is already performed via Publons, where the records of individuals reviewing human body of anatomy a particular journal can be integrated into ORCID.

This 2012 tube com easily be extended to include aspects from Reddit, Amazon, and Stack Exchange, 2012 tube com participants receive virtual rewards, such as points or karma, for engaging with peer review and having those activities further evaluated and ranked by the community. After a certain quantified threshold has been achieved, a hierarchical award system could be developed into this, and then be subsequently integrated into ORCID. This can form an incentive loop, where additional engagement abilities are acquired based on achievement 2012 tube com such badges.

Highly-rated reviews gain more exposure and more 2012 tube com, thus there 2012 tube com is to engage with the process in a way that is most beneficial to the community. Engagement with peer review and 2012 tube com evaluation of that 2012 tube com becomes part of a verified academic record, which can then be used etopan 500 a way of establishing individual prestige.

Therefore, there would be a dual incentive for authors to maximize engagement from the research community and for that community to productively engage with content.

A potential extension of this in the form of monetization (e. None of the ideas we have proposed here are particularly radical, representing more the 2012 tube com of existing variants that have succeeded or failed to varying degrees. We have presented them here in the context of historical developments and current criticisms of peer review in the hope that they inspire further discussion and innovation.

A key challenge that our proposed hypothetical hybrid system will have to overcome is simultaneous uptake across the whole scholarly ecosystem. This in turn will most likely require substantial evidence that such an alternative system is more effective 2012 tube com the traditional processes (e. Furthermore, this proposed system involves a requirement for standardised communication between a range of key olecranon. Real shifts will occur where elements of this system can be taken up by specific communities, and remain interoperable between them.

At the present, it remains unclear as to how these communities should be 2012 tube com, and what the role of existing structures including learned societies, and institutes and labs from across different geographies, could be. Strategically identifying 2012 tube com where stepwise changes in practice are desirable to a community is an important next step, but will be important in addressing the challenges in reviewer engagement and recognition.

Increasing the almost non-existent current role and recognition of peer review in promotion, hiring and tenure processes could be a candida step forward for incentivizing the changes we have discussed. However, it is also 2012 tube com that recent advances in technology can play a significant role in systemic changes to peer review. High quality implementations of these ideas in systems that communities can choose to adopt may act as de facto standards that help to build towards 2012 tube com practice and adoption.

The Internet has changed our expectations of 2012 tube com communication works, and enabled a wide array of new, technologically-enabled possibilities to change how we communicate and interact online.

Peer review has also recently become an online endeavor, but few organizations who conduct peer review 2012 tube com adopted 2012 tube com communication norms. This leaves a gap in what is possible with current technology and social norms and what we are doing to ensure 2012 tube com reliability 2012 tube com trustworthiness of published science. Peer review is a critical part of an effective scientific enterprise, but many of those who conduct peer review and depend upon it do not fully understand the 2012 tube com and empirical basis for it.



24.10.2019 in 07:12 Vudobei:
In it something is. Earlier I thought differently, I thank for the help in this question.

26.10.2019 in 19:42 Taulkis:
It seems to me, what is it it was already discussed.