As most of us know, the reviewer recognition website PUBLONS was taken over by CLARIVATE (Web of Science) last year and, a few months ago, Publons was merged with WoS., thus factually disappearing.
What do you think about this new scenario? Are we reviewers sufficiently recognized in WoS website? I personally loved the fresh, clear and dedicated webpages from Publons, and I don't think WoS communicates reviewer recognition as straight and clear as Publons did.
I would like to hear your opinions about this matter and about how to improve reviewer recognition in general. What can be done to improve the public recognition of our contribution to the publishing process? Every publisher says our hidden work is "crucial" to science communication, however I am not sure we are rewarded as we deserve...
To me, PUBLONS were better, but this take by Clarivate is too fresh form the fnal opinion.
Yes, Linas Balciauskas and Thomas S. Jung you both are OK. Publons was great. But what can be done to better recognise the work of reviewers? PUBLONS is as good as gone, so what comes next? ORCID has a section devoted to one's peer review activity. But is that enough? Not for me, anyhow...
I may take a different approach, but I feel that as long as the journals send email acknowledgments of the reviews, which we can include in promotion and tenure portfolios, we have sufficient recognition.
You might be right Michael, as long as there is a "private" recognition such as a mail it is OK. But this "private" recognition is not un-problematic: I recently tried to set up a team of reviewers for a project and I can tell you, it was a hard job finding the reviews of people or their editorial domains of expertise... I think much is lost to the research community when recognition remains a private thing between editor and reviewer and there is no way of making this public....
Yes, it's true that editors send private recognitions to authors/reviewers through emails, however, there should be a better way of doing this. I think what PUBLONS does was a great way in recognising the work of a reviewer/author, and which will equally have a reference point for organizations and others who care to know/see what a reviewer/author does or had done in his/her field. WoS (Clarivate Analytics) must look for ways of bringing this back to the fore especially for early career researchers who are willing to do this, without any monetary value but passion and love. Also, the reviewer's trainings must continue as this will encourage reviewers to do more.
Never have used it in my curriculum. I assume that to be a reviewer is a win-win relationship, you review someone‘s work and someone review yours. In Spain, and also in my university, you are required to do so many things to promote that this part is not included. Anyway, it’s a business with our work…
The demise of Publons is a shame. It was a seamless way of recording reviews conducted. So far though, I see WOS continuing in the same vein - Verified Peer Reviews are easily found when logging in to WOS.
I believe recognition via a CV is enough. Just report you reviewed X number of manuscripts for X journals. If you need precise data for academic credentials (i.e., promotion or tenure) feel free to share correspondence from editor. I think the blind part of the review should be limited to the reviewer, author and the editor.
Well, after four months of having asked this questions online (some 500 views and several colleagues' answers to the question, which you can read on this thread), we may cautiously conclude that PUBLONS was great, but the current setting of WOS is, though less satisfying, good enough for most of us. Thanks to Robert Bristow Joseph M. Cheer María De-Miguel-Molina James Oluwaseyi Hodonu-Wusu Michael W. Marek Thomas S. Jung and Linas Balciauskas for your contributions!
Do you think we with ResearchGate should implement a feature like that? And if so, how do you like the feature to look like?
Hmmm... an interesting question. dear Ijad Madisch
As I made it clear, I think that, in the current setting, the reviewers' work is a bit "buried", it used to be more visible when Publons existed. Can't you just at RG "take the data" directly from WoS and display it on an author's profile somewhere along the other stats in the profile? ORCID does that with both reviews and citations... Anyhow, that's topic for a coffee round discussion in Berlin -- with a piece of cheese cake or Schwarzwaelder... hahaha... Best regards from Sweden.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Correction