Collaborative Document Evaluation : An Alternative Approach to Classic Peer Review

Lade...
Vorschaubild
Dateien
Zu diesem Dokument gibt es keine Dateien.
Datum
2008
Autor:innen
Beel, Jöran
Herausgeber:innen
Kontakt
ISSN der Zeitschrift
Electronic ISSN
ISBN
Bibliografische Daten
Verlag
Schriftenreihe
Auflagebezeichnung
URI (zitierfähiger Link)
DOI (zitierfähiger Link)
ArXiv-ID
Internationale Patentnummer
Angaben zur Forschungsförderung
Projekt
Open Access-Veröffentlichung
Core Facility der Universität Konstanz
Gesperrt bis
Titel in einer weiteren Sprache
Forschungsvorhaben
Organisationseinheiten
Zeitschriftenheft
Publikationstyp
Zeitschriftenartikel
Publikationsstatus
Published
Erschienen in
Proceedings of World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology. 2008, 2(5), pp. 353-356. ISSN 1307-6892
Zusammenfassung

Research papers are usually evaluated via peer review. However, peer review has limitations in evaluating research papers. In this paper, Scienstein and the new idea of 'collaborative document evaluation' are presented. Scienstein is a project to evaluate scientific papers collaboratively based on ratings, links, annotations and classifications by the scientific community using the internet. In this paper, critical success factors of collaborative document evaluation are analyzed. That is the scientists- motivation to participate as reviewers, the reviewers- competence and the reviewers- trustworthiness. It is shown that if these factors are ensured, collaborative document evaluation may prove to be a more objective, faster and less resource intensive approach to scientific document evaluation in comparison to the classical peer review process. It is shown that additional advantages exist as collaborative document evaluation supports interdisciplinary work, allows continuous post-publishing quality assessments and enables the implementation of academic recommendation engines. In the long term, it seems possible that collaborative document evaluation will successively substitute peer review and decrease the need for journals.

Zusammenfassung in einer weiteren Sprache
Fachgebiet (DDC)
004 Informatik
Schlagwörter
Peer Review, Alternative, Collaboration, Document Evaluation, Rating, Annotations
Konferenz
Rezension
undefined / . - undefined, undefined
Zitieren
ISO 690BEEL, Jöran, Bela GIPP, 2008. Collaborative Document Evaluation : An Alternative Approach to Classic Peer Review. In: Proceedings of World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology. 2008, 2(5), pp. 353-356. ISSN 1307-6892
BibTex
@article{Beel2008Colla-31451,
  year={2008},
  title={Collaborative Document Evaluation : An Alternative Approach to Classic Peer Review},
  url={http://waset.org/publication/Collaborative-Document-Evaluation:-An-Alternative-Approach-to-Classic-Peer-Review/8129},
  number={5},
  volume={2},
  issn={1307-6892},
  journal={Proceedings of World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology},
  pages={353--356},
  author={Beel, Jöran and Gipp, Bela}
}
RDF
<rdf:RDF
    xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/"
    xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#"
    xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
    xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#"
    xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > 
  <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/31451">
    <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2015-07-19T05:07:21Z</dcterms:available>
    <dcterms:issued>2008</dcterms:issued>
    <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">Research papers are usually evaluated via peer review. However, peer review has limitations in evaluating research papers. In this paper, Scienstein and the new idea of 'collaborative document evaluation' are presented. Scienstein is a project to evaluate scientific papers collaboratively based on ratings, links, annotations and classifications by the scientific community using the internet. In this paper, critical success factors of collaborative document evaluation are analyzed. That is the scientists- motivation to participate as reviewers, the reviewers- competence and the reviewers- trustworthiness. It is shown that if these factors are ensured, collaborative document evaluation may prove to be a more objective, faster and less resource intensive approach to scientific document evaluation in comparison to the classical peer review process. It is shown that additional advantages exist as collaborative document evaluation supports interdisciplinary work, allows continuous post-publishing quality assessments and enables the implementation of academic recommendation engines. In the long term, it seems possible that collaborative document evaluation will successively substitute peer review and decrease the need for journals.</dcterms:abstract>
    <dc:contributor>Gipp, Bela</dc:contributor>
    <bibo:uri rdf:resource="http://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/31451"/>
    <dc:contributor>Beel, Jöran</dc:contributor>
    <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/>
    <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/36"/>
    <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2015-07-19T05:07:21Z</dc:date>
    <dcterms:title>Collaborative Document Evaluation : An Alternative Approach to Classic Peer Review</dcterms:title>
    <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
    <dc:creator>Gipp, Bela</dc:creator>
    <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/>
    <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/36"/>
    <dc:creator>Beel, Jöran</dc:creator>
  </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
Interner Vermerk
xmlui.Submission.submit.DescribeStep.inputForms.label.kops_note_fromSubmitter
Kontakt
Prüfungsdatum der Dissertation
Finanzierungsart
Kommentar zur Publikation
Allianzlizenz
Corresponding Authors der Uni Konstanz vorhanden
Internationale Co-Autor:innen
Universitätsbibliographie
Nein
Begutachtet
Diese Publikation teilen