Let the crowd be my peers? How researchers assess the prospects of social peer review
Abstract While Internet technologies have provided social networks for researchers as more open means to make their work available to other scholars, the traditionally closed, peer review-based publishing process has remained nearly untouched. We ask researchers about their intention to go one step...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Matt, Christian [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2017 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Anmerkung: |
© Institute of Applied Informatics at University of Leipzig 2017 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Electronic markets - Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1991, 27(2017), 2 vom: 28. Feb., Seite 111-124 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:27 ; year:2017 ; number:2 ; day:28 ; month:02 ; pages:111-124 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1007/s12525-017-0247-4 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
OLC2028273909 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | OLC2028273909 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230504155716.0 | ||
| 007 | tu | ||
| 008 | 200819s2017 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s12525-017-0247-4 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)OLC2028273909 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-He213)s12525-017-0247-4-p | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 380 |q VZ |
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 620 |q VZ |
| 084 | |a 3,2 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Matt, Christian |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Let the crowd be my peers? How researchers assess the prospects of social peer review |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2017 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Band |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a © Institute of Applied Informatics at University of Leipzig 2017 | ||
| 520 | |a Abstract While Internet technologies have provided social networks for researchers as more open means to make their work available to other scholars, the traditionally closed, peer review-based publishing process has remained nearly untouched. We ask researchers about their intention to go one step further and use social peer review (SPR), which enables them to directly publish their work within a web-based social network, where, instead of the traditional pre-publication peer review, it can be evaluated and critiqued by the entire academic community. Based on a sample of 1429 international scholars from various fields and by drawing upon adoption and institutional theory, this study seeks to identify scientists’ motivational drivers for engaging in this new forms of scholarly communication. We find that the adoption of SPR is driven more by extrinsic factors than by researchers’ intrinsic motivation or normative influences to make science more open. Further challenges for SPR are low scores on the most relevant performance criteria, as well as low acceptance by established scientists. However, rather than a substitute, SPR is well perceived as a possible supplement to the traditional peer-based review system. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Social peer review | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Scholarly communication | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Social computing | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Hoerndlein, Christian |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Hess, Thomas |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Electronic markets |d Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1991 |g 27(2017), 2 vom: 28. Feb., Seite 111-124 |w (DE-627)193585847 |w (DE-600)1309988-7 |w (DE-576)062210572 |x 1019-6781 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:27 |g year:2017 |g number:2 |g day:28 |g month:02 |g pages:111-124 |
| 856 | 4 | 1 | |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-017-0247-4 |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_OLC | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-WIW | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_24 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_26 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_32 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_267 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2018 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 27 |j 2017 |e 2 |b 28 |c 02 |h 111-124 | ||
| author_variant |
c m cm c h ch t h th |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:10196781:2017----::eterwbmpesorsacesseshpopc |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2017 |
| publishDate |
2017 |
| allfields |
10.1007/s12525-017-0247-4 doi (DE-627)OLC2028273909 (DE-He213)s12525-017-0247-4-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 380 VZ 620 VZ 3,2 ssgn Matt, Christian verfasserin aut Let the crowd be my peers? How researchers assess the prospects of social peer review 2017 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Institute of Applied Informatics at University of Leipzig 2017 Abstract While Internet technologies have provided social networks for researchers as more open means to make their work available to other scholars, the traditionally closed, peer review-based publishing process has remained nearly untouched. We ask researchers about their intention to go one step further and use social peer review (SPR), which enables them to directly publish their work within a web-based social network, where, instead of the traditional pre-publication peer review, it can be evaluated and critiqued by the entire academic community. Based on a sample of 1429 international scholars from various fields and by drawing upon adoption and institutional theory, this study seeks to identify scientists’ motivational drivers for engaging in this new forms of scholarly communication. We find that the adoption of SPR is driven more by extrinsic factors than by researchers’ intrinsic motivation or normative influences to make science more open. Further challenges for SPR are low scores on the most relevant performance criteria, as well as low acceptance by established scientists. However, rather than a substitute, SPR is well perceived as a possible supplement to the traditional peer-based review system. Social peer review Scholarly communication Social computing Hoerndlein, Christian aut Hess, Thomas aut Enthalten in Electronic markets Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1991 27(2017), 2 vom: 28. Feb., Seite 111-124 (DE-627)193585847 (DE-600)1309988-7 (DE-576)062210572 1019-6781 nnns volume:27 year:2017 number:2 day:28 month:02 pages:111-124 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-017-0247-4 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-WIW GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_26 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_4012 AR 27 2017 2 28 02 111-124 |
| spelling |
10.1007/s12525-017-0247-4 doi (DE-627)OLC2028273909 (DE-He213)s12525-017-0247-4-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 380 VZ 620 VZ 3,2 ssgn Matt, Christian verfasserin aut Let the crowd be my peers? How researchers assess the prospects of social peer review 2017 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Institute of Applied Informatics at University of Leipzig 2017 Abstract While Internet technologies have provided social networks for researchers as more open means to make their work available to other scholars, the traditionally closed, peer review-based publishing process has remained nearly untouched. We ask researchers about their intention to go one step further and use social peer review (SPR), which enables them to directly publish their work within a web-based social network, where, instead of the traditional pre-publication peer review, it can be evaluated and critiqued by the entire academic community. Based on a sample of 1429 international scholars from various fields and by drawing upon adoption and institutional theory, this study seeks to identify scientists’ motivational drivers for engaging in this new forms of scholarly communication. We find that the adoption of SPR is driven more by extrinsic factors than by researchers’ intrinsic motivation or normative influences to make science more open. Further challenges for SPR are low scores on the most relevant performance criteria, as well as low acceptance by established scientists. However, rather than a substitute, SPR is well perceived as a possible supplement to the traditional peer-based review system. Social peer review Scholarly communication Social computing Hoerndlein, Christian aut Hess, Thomas aut Enthalten in Electronic markets Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1991 27(2017), 2 vom: 28. Feb., Seite 111-124 (DE-627)193585847 (DE-600)1309988-7 (DE-576)062210572 1019-6781 nnns volume:27 year:2017 number:2 day:28 month:02 pages:111-124 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-017-0247-4 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-WIW GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_26 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_4012 AR 27 2017 2 28 02 111-124 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1007/s12525-017-0247-4 doi (DE-627)OLC2028273909 (DE-He213)s12525-017-0247-4-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 380 VZ 620 VZ 3,2 ssgn Matt, Christian verfasserin aut Let the crowd be my peers? How researchers assess the prospects of social peer review 2017 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Institute of Applied Informatics at University of Leipzig 2017 Abstract While Internet technologies have provided social networks for researchers as more open means to make their work available to other scholars, the traditionally closed, peer review-based publishing process has remained nearly untouched. We ask researchers about their intention to go one step further and use social peer review (SPR), which enables them to directly publish their work within a web-based social network, where, instead of the traditional pre-publication peer review, it can be evaluated and critiqued by the entire academic community. Based on a sample of 1429 international scholars from various fields and by drawing upon adoption and institutional theory, this study seeks to identify scientists’ motivational drivers for engaging in this new forms of scholarly communication. We find that the adoption of SPR is driven more by extrinsic factors than by researchers’ intrinsic motivation or normative influences to make science more open. Further challenges for SPR are low scores on the most relevant performance criteria, as well as low acceptance by established scientists. However, rather than a substitute, SPR is well perceived as a possible supplement to the traditional peer-based review system. Social peer review Scholarly communication Social computing Hoerndlein, Christian aut Hess, Thomas aut Enthalten in Electronic markets Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1991 27(2017), 2 vom: 28. Feb., Seite 111-124 (DE-627)193585847 (DE-600)1309988-7 (DE-576)062210572 1019-6781 nnns volume:27 year:2017 number:2 day:28 month:02 pages:111-124 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-017-0247-4 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-WIW GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_26 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_4012 AR 27 2017 2 28 02 111-124 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1007/s12525-017-0247-4 doi (DE-627)OLC2028273909 (DE-He213)s12525-017-0247-4-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 380 VZ 620 VZ 3,2 ssgn Matt, Christian verfasserin aut Let the crowd be my peers? How researchers assess the prospects of social peer review 2017 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Institute of Applied Informatics at University of Leipzig 2017 Abstract While Internet technologies have provided social networks for researchers as more open means to make their work available to other scholars, the traditionally closed, peer review-based publishing process has remained nearly untouched. We ask researchers about their intention to go one step further and use social peer review (SPR), which enables them to directly publish their work within a web-based social network, where, instead of the traditional pre-publication peer review, it can be evaluated and critiqued by the entire academic community. Based on a sample of 1429 international scholars from various fields and by drawing upon adoption and institutional theory, this study seeks to identify scientists’ motivational drivers for engaging in this new forms of scholarly communication. We find that the adoption of SPR is driven more by extrinsic factors than by researchers’ intrinsic motivation or normative influences to make science more open. Further challenges for SPR are low scores on the most relevant performance criteria, as well as low acceptance by established scientists. However, rather than a substitute, SPR is well perceived as a possible supplement to the traditional peer-based review system. Social peer review Scholarly communication Social computing Hoerndlein, Christian aut Hess, Thomas aut Enthalten in Electronic markets Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1991 27(2017), 2 vom: 28. Feb., Seite 111-124 (DE-627)193585847 (DE-600)1309988-7 (DE-576)062210572 1019-6781 nnns volume:27 year:2017 number:2 day:28 month:02 pages:111-124 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-017-0247-4 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-WIW GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_26 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_4012 AR 27 2017 2 28 02 111-124 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1007/s12525-017-0247-4 doi (DE-627)OLC2028273909 (DE-He213)s12525-017-0247-4-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 380 VZ 620 VZ 3,2 ssgn Matt, Christian verfasserin aut Let the crowd be my peers? How researchers assess the prospects of social peer review 2017 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Institute of Applied Informatics at University of Leipzig 2017 Abstract While Internet technologies have provided social networks for researchers as more open means to make their work available to other scholars, the traditionally closed, peer review-based publishing process has remained nearly untouched. We ask researchers about their intention to go one step further and use social peer review (SPR), which enables them to directly publish their work within a web-based social network, where, instead of the traditional pre-publication peer review, it can be evaluated and critiqued by the entire academic community. Based on a sample of 1429 international scholars from various fields and by drawing upon adoption and institutional theory, this study seeks to identify scientists’ motivational drivers for engaging in this new forms of scholarly communication. We find that the adoption of SPR is driven more by extrinsic factors than by researchers’ intrinsic motivation or normative influences to make science more open. Further challenges for SPR are low scores on the most relevant performance criteria, as well as low acceptance by established scientists. However, rather than a substitute, SPR is well perceived as a possible supplement to the traditional peer-based review system. Social peer review Scholarly communication Social computing Hoerndlein, Christian aut Hess, Thomas aut Enthalten in Electronic markets Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1991 27(2017), 2 vom: 28. Feb., Seite 111-124 (DE-627)193585847 (DE-600)1309988-7 (DE-576)062210572 1019-6781 nnns volume:27 year:2017 number:2 day:28 month:02 pages:111-124 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-017-0247-4 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-WIW GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_26 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_4012 AR 27 2017 2 28 02 111-124 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Electronic markets 27(2017), 2 vom: 28. Feb., Seite 111-124 volume:27 year:2017 number:2 day:28 month:02 pages:111-124 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Electronic markets 27(2017), 2 vom: 28. Feb., Seite 111-124 volume:27 year:2017 number:2 day:28 month:02 pages:111-124 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Social peer review Scholarly communication Social computing |
| dewey-raw |
380 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Electronic markets |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Matt, Christian @@aut@@ Hoerndlein, Christian @@aut@@ Hess, Thomas @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2017-02-28T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
193585847 |
| dewey-sort |
3380 |
| id |
OLC2028273909 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC2028273909</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230504155716.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200819s2017 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s12525-017-0247-4</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC2028273909</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s12525-017-0247-4-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">380</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">620</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">3,2</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Matt, Christian</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Let the crowd be my peers? How researchers assess the prospects of social peer review</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Institute of Applied Informatics at University of Leipzig 2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract While Internet technologies have provided social networks for researchers as more open means to make their work available to other scholars, the traditionally closed, peer review-based publishing process has remained nearly untouched. We ask researchers about their intention to go one step further and use social peer review (SPR), which enables them to directly publish their work within a web-based social network, where, instead of the traditional pre-publication peer review, it can be evaluated and critiqued by the entire academic community. Based on a sample of 1429 international scholars from various fields and by drawing upon adoption and institutional theory, this study seeks to identify scientists’ motivational drivers for engaging in this new forms of scholarly communication. We find that the adoption of SPR is driven more by extrinsic factors than by researchers’ intrinsic motivation or normative influences to make science more open. Further challenges for SPR are low scores on the most relevant performance criteria, as well as low acceptance by established scientists. However, rather than a substitute, SPR is well perceived as a possible supplement to the traditional peer-based review system.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Social peer review</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Scholarly communication</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Social computing</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hoerndlein, Christian</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hess, Thomas</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Electronic markets</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1991</subfield><subfield code="g">27(2017), 2 vom: 28. Feb., Seite 111-124</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)193585847</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)1309988-7</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)062210572</subfield><subfield code="x">1019-6781</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:27</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2017</subfield><subfield code="g">number:2</subfield><subfield code="g">day:28</subfield><subfield code="g">month:02</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:111-124</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-017-0247-4</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-WIW</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_26</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_32</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_267</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">27</subfield><subfield code="j">2017</subfield><subfield code="e">2</subfield><subfield code="b">28</subfield><subfield code="c">02</subfield><subfield code="h">111-124</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Matt, Christian |
| spellingShingle |
Matt, Christian ddc 380 ddc 620 ssgn 3,2 misc Social peer review misc Scholarly communication misc Social computing Let the crowd be my peers? How researchers assess the prospects of social peer review |
| authorStr |
Matt, Christian |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)193585847 |
| format |
Article |
| dewey-ones |
380 - Commerce, communications & transportation 620 - Engineering & allied operations |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut |
| collection |
OLC |
| remote_str |
false |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
1019-6781 |
| topic_title |
380 VZ 620 VZ 3,2 ssgn Let the crowd be my peers? How researchers assess the prospects of social peer review Social peer review Scholarly communication Social computing |
| topic |
ddc 380 ddc 620 ssgn 3,2 misc Social peer review misc Scholarly communication misc Social computing |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 380 ddc 620 ssgn 3,2 misc Social peer review misc Scholarly communication misc Social computing |
| topic_browse |
ddc 380 ddc 620 ssgn 3,2 misc Social peer review misc Scholarly communication misc Social computing |
| format_facet |
Aufsätze Gedruckte Aufsätze |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
nc |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Electronic markets |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
193585847 |
| dewey-tens |
380 - Commerce, communications & transportation 620 - Engineering |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Electronic markets |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)193585847 (DE-600)1309988-7 (DE-576)062210572 |
| title |
Let the crowd be my peers? How researchers assess the prospects of social peer review |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)OLC2028273909 (DE-He213)s12525-017-0247-4-p |
| title_full |
Let the crowd be my peers? How researchers assess the prospects of social peer review |
| author_sort |
Matt, Christian |
| journal |
Electronic markets |
| journalStr |
Electronic markets |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
300 - Social sciences 600 - Technology |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2017 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
111 |
| author_browse |
Matt, Christian Hoerndlein, Christian Hess, Thomas |
| container_volume |
27 |
| class |
380 VZ 620 VZ 3,2 ssgn |
| format_se |
Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Matt, Christian |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1007/s12525-017-0247-4 |
| dewey-full |
380 620 |
| title_sort |
let the crowd be my peers? how researchers assess the prospects of social peer review |
| title_auth |
Let the crowd be my peers? How researchers assess the prospects of social peer review |
| abstract |
Abstract While Internet technologies have provided social networks for researchers as more open means to make their work available to other scholars, the traditionally closed, peer review-based publishing process has remained nearly untouched. We ask researchers about their intention to go one step further and use social peer review (SPR), which enables them to directly publish their work within a web-based social network, where, instead of the traditional pre-publication peer review, it can be evaluated and critiqued by the entire academic community. Based on a sample of 1429 international scholars from various fields and by drawing upon adoption and institutional theory, this study seeks to identify scientists’ motivational drivers for engaging in this new forms of scholarly communication. We find that the adoption of SPR is driven more by extrinsic factors than by researchers’ intrinsic motivation or normative influences to make science more open. Further challenges for SPR are low scores on the most relevant performance criteria, as well as low acceptance by established scientists. However, rather than a substitute, SPR is well perceived as a possible supplement to the traditional peer-based review system. © Institute of Applied Informatics at University of Leipzig 2017 |
| abstractGer |
Abstract While Internet technologies have provided social networks for researchers as more open means to make their work available to other scholars, the traditionally closed, peer review-based publishing process has remained nearly untouched. We ask researchers about their intention to go one step further and use social peer review (SPR), which enables them to directly publish their work within a web-based social network, where, instead of the traditional pre-publication peer review, it can be evaluated and critiqued by the entire academic community. Based on a sample of 1429 international scholars from various fields and by drawing upon adoption and institutional theory, this study seeks to identify scientists’ motivational drivers for engaging in this new forms of scholarly communication. We find that the adoption of SPR is driven more by extrinsic factors than by researchers’ intrinsic motivation or normative influences to make science more open. Further challenges for SPR are low scores on the most relevant performance criteria, as well as low acceptance by established scientists. However, rather than a substitute, SPR is well perceived as a possible supplement to the traditional peer-based review system. © Institute of Applied Informatics at University of Leipzig 2017 |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Abstract While Internet technologies have provided social networks for researchers as more open means to make their work available to other scholars, the traditionally closed, peer review-based publishing process has remained nearly untouched. We ask researchers about their intention to go one step further and use social peer review (SPR), which enables them to directly publish their work within a web-based social network, where, instead of the traditional pre-publication peer review, it can be evaluated and critiqued by the entire academic community. Based on a sample of 1429 international scholars from various fields and by drawing upon adoption and institutional theory, this study seeks to identify scientists’ motivational drivers for engaging in this new forms of scholarly communication. We find that the adoption of SPR is driven more by extrinsic factors than by researchers’ intrinsic motivation or normative influences to make science more open. Further challenges for SPR are low scores on the most relevant performance criteria, as well as low acceptance by established scientists. However, rather than a substitute, SPR is well perceived as a possible supplement to the traditional peer-based review system. © Institute of Applied Informatics at University of Leipzig 2017 |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-WIW GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_26 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_4012 |
| container_issue |
2 |
| title_short |
Let the crowd be my peers? How researchers assess the prospects of social peer review |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-017-0247-4 |
| remote_bool |
false |
| author2 |
Hoerndlein, Christian Hess, Thomas |
| author2Str |
Hoerndlein, Christian Hess, Thomas |
| ppnlink |
193585847 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
n |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1007/s12525-017-0247-4 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T18:06:27.859Z |
| _version_ |
1803582164550287360 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC2028273909</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230504155716.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200819s2017 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s12525-017-0247-4</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC2028273909</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s12525-017-0247-4-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">380</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">620</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">3,2</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Matt, Christian</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Let the crowd be my peers? How researchers assess the prospects of social peer review</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Institute of Applied Informatics at University of Leipzig 2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract While Internet technologies have provided social networks for researchers as more open means to make their work available to other scholars, the traditionally closed, peer review-based publishing process has remained nearly untouched. We ask researchers about their intention to go one step further and use social peer review (SPR), which enables them to directly publish their work within a web-based social network, where, instead of the traditional pre-publication peer review, it can be evaluated and critiqued by the entire academic community. Based on a sample of 1429 international scholars from various fields and by drawing upon adoption and institutional theory, this study seeks to identify scientists’ motivational drivers for engaging in this new forms of scholarly communication. We find that the adoption of SPR is driven more by extrinsic factors than by researchers’ intrinsic motivation or normative influences to make science more open. Further challenges for SPR are low scores on the most relevant performance criteria, as well as low acceptance by established scientists. However, rather than a substitute, SPR is well perceived as a possible supplement to the traditional peer-based review system.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Social peer review</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Scholarly communication</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Social computing</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hoerndlein, Christian</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hess, Thomas</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Electronic markets</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1991</subfield><subfield code="g">27(2017), 2 vom: 28. Feb., Seite 111-124</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)193585847</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)1309988-7</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)062210572</subfield><subfield code="x">1019-6781</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:27</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2017</subfield><subfield code="g">number:2</subfield><subfield code="g">day:28</subfield><subfield code="g">month:02</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:111-124</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-017-0247-4</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-WIW</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_26</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_32</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_267</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">27</subfield><subfield code="j">2017</subfield><subfield code="e">2</subfield><subfield code="b">28</subfield><subfield code="c">02</subfield><subfield code="h">111-124</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.3980455 |