Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
470
result(s) for
"Ross, Tony"
Sort by:
Our Kid
Arriving late again with no homework and uniform, a young goat has a whale of a tale involving dinopirates, fish-driven submarines, and elephant rides--but will his teacher believe him?
Book
What is open peer review? A systematic review
Background : “Open peer review” (OPR), despite being a major pillar of Open Science, has neither a standardized definition nor an agreed schema of its features and implementations. The literature reflects this, with numerous overlapping and contradictory definitions. While for some the term refers to peer review where the identities of both author and reviewer are disclosed to each other, for others it signifies systems where reviewer reports are published alongside articles. For others it signifies both of these conditions, and for yet others it describes systems where not only “invited experts” are able to comment. For still others, it includes a variety of combinations of these and other novel methods. Methods : Recognising the absence of a consensus view on what open peer review is, this article undertakes a systematic review of definitions of “open peer review” or “open review”, to create a corpus of 122 definitions. These definitions are systematically analysed to build a coherent typology of the various innovations in peer review signified by the term, and hence provide the precise technical definition currently lacking. Results : This quantifiable data yields rich information on the range and extent of differing definitions over time and by broad subject area. Quantifying definitions in this way allows us to accurately portray exactly how ambiguously the phrase “open peer review” has been used thus far, for the literature offers 22 distinct configurations of seven traits, effectively meaning that there are 22 different definitions of OPR in the literature reviewed. Conclusions : I propose a pragmatic definition of open peer review as an umbrella term for a number of overlapping ways that peer review models can be adapted in line with the aims of Open Science, including making reviewer and author identities open, publishing review reports and enabling greater participation in the peer review process.
Journal Article
Strategic priorities for reproducibility reform
Increasing the reproducibility of research should be a top priority. Great work is being done, but more work is needed to combine efforts and maximize our actions to enable true reproducibility reform.
Journal Article
An anty-war story
Douglas, the only ant with a name in happy, busy Antworld, just wants to fit in, but he is told that because he is big, he will be a soldier.
Book
Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers
Open peer review (OPR) is a cornerstone of the emergent Open Science agenda. Yet to date no large-scale survey of attitudes towards OPR amongst academic editors, authors, reviewers and publishers has been undertaken. This paper presents the findings of an online survey, conducted for the OpenAIRE2020 project during September and October 2016, that sought to bridge this information gap in order to aid the development of appropriate OPR approaches by providing evidence about attitudes towards and levels of experience with OPR. The results of this cross-disciplinary survey, which received 3,062 full responses, show the majority (60.3%) of respondents to be believe that OPR as a general concept should be mainstream scholarly practice (although attitudes to individual traits varied, and open identities peer review was not generally favoured). Respondents were also in favour of other areas of Open Science, like Open Access (88.2%) and Open Data (80.3%). Among respondents we observed high levels of experience with OPR, with three out of four (76.2%) reporting having taken part in an OPR process as author, reviewer or editor. There were also high levels of support for most of the traits of OPR, particularly open interaction, open reports and final-version commenting. Respondents were against opening reviewer identities to authors, however, with more than half believing it would make peer review worse. Overall satisfaction with the peer review system used by scholarly journals seems to strongly vary across disciplines. Taken together, these findings are very encouraging for OPR's prospects for moving mainstream but indicate that due care must be taken to avoid a \"one-size fits all\" solution and to tailor such systems to differing (especially disciplinary) contexts. OPR is an evolving phenomenon and hence future studies are to be encouraged, especially to further explore differences between disciplines and monitor the evolution of attitudes.
Journal Article
أريد أن أفوز !
تحكي قصة الأميرة الصغيرة : أريد أن أفوز ! تأليف توني روس، أن تحب الأميرة الصغيرة الفوز في كل شيء في القصر، يخسر الجميع عن قصد لكي تفوز هي لكن، في المدرسة، ومهما حاولت، لا تستطيع الفوز في أية مسابقة وإذا بها تكتشف أن الفوز أكثر متعة حين تستحقه فعلا !، صدرت القصة عن دار هاشيت أنطوان أطفال.
BOOK
Open science, done wrong, will compound inequities
[...]the ways in which it is being implemented can have unintended consequences, and these must not be ignored. Since 2019, I've led ON-MERRIT, a project funded by the European Commission that uses a mixture of computational and qualitative methods to investigate how open science affects the research system. Even those rooting for equity often argue that we should first enable access and then consider unintended side effects, such as marginalization of authors from lowincome countries. [...]reform should encompass the research system as a whole, rather than country- or region-based policies that target specific practices.
Journal Article
Amber Brown wants extra credit
Unhappy over her parents' divorce and her mother's boyfriend Max, nine-year-old Amber finds her schoolwork suffering.
Book
The societal impact of Open Science: a scoping review
Open Science (OS) aims, in part, to drive greater societal impact of academic research. Government, funder and institutional policies state that it should further democratize research and increase learning and awareness, evidence-based policy-making, the relevance of research to society's problems, and public trust in research. Yet, measuring the societal impact of OS has proven challenging and synthesized evidence of it is lacking. This study fills this gap by systematically scoping the existing evidence of societal impact driven by OS and its various aspects, including Citizen Science (CS), Open Access (OA), Open/FAIR Data (OFD), Open Code/Software and others. Using the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews and searches conducted in Web of Science, Scopus and relevant grey literature, we identified 196 studies that contain evidence of societal impact. The majority concern CS, with some focused on OA, and only a few addressing other aspects. Key areas of impact found are education and awareness, climate and environment, and social engagement. We found no literature documenting evidence of the societal impact of OFD and limited evidence of societal impact in terms of policy, health, and trust in academic research. Our findings demonstrate a critical need for additional evidence and suggest practical and policy implications.
Journal Article