MOUNCE Ross's profile
avatar

MOUNCE RossORCID_LOGO

  • Director of Open Access Programmes, Arcadia Fund, London, United Kingdom
  • Life Sciences
  • recommender

Recommendations:  0

Review:  1

Areas of expertise
Cladistics, Academic Publishing, Bibliometrics, Scientometrics, Research on Research, Metaresearch, Preprints Some of the things I've written about can be found at my blog here: https://rossmounce.co.uk/

Review:  1

11 Sep 2023
STAGE 1

Finding the right words to evaluate research: An empirical appraisal of eLife’s assessment vocabulary

Understanding the validity of standardised language in research evaluation

Recommended by and based on reviews by Chris Hartgerink (they/them), Veli-Matti Karhulahti, Štěpán Bahník and Ross Mounce
In 2023, the journal eLife ended the practice of making binary accept/reject decisions following peer review, instead sharing peer review reports (for manuscripts that are peer-reviewed) and brief “eLife assessments” representing the consensus opinions of editors and peer reviewers. As part of these assessments, the journal draws language from a "common vocabulary" to linguistically rank the significance of findings and strength of empirical support for the article's conclusions. In particular, the significance of findings is described using an ordinal scale of terms from "landmark" → "fundamental" → "important" → "valuable" → "useful", while the strength of support is ranked across six descending levels from "exceptional" down to "inadequate".
 
In the current study, Hardwicke et al. (2023) question the validity of this taxonomy, noting a range of linguistic ambiguities and counterintuitive characteristics that may undermine the communication of research evaluations to readers. Given the centrality of this common vocabulary to the journal's policy, the authors propose a study to explore whether the language used in the eLife assessments will be interpreted as intended by readers. Using a repeated-measures experimental design, they will tackle three aims: first, to understand the extent to which people share similar interpretations of phrases used to describe scientific research; second, to reveal the extent to which people’s implicit ranking of phrases used to describe scientific research aligns with each other and with the intended ranking; and third, to test whether phrases used to describe scientific research have overlapping interpretations. The proposed study has the potential to make a useful contribution to metascience, as well as being a valuable source of information for other journals potentially interested in following the novel path made by eLife.
 
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).
 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/mkbtp
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that will be used to answer the research question yet exists and no part will be generated until after IPA.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 
References
 
1. Hardwicke, T. E., Schiavone, S., Clarke, B. & Vazire, S. (2023). Finding the right words to evaluate research: An empirical appraisal of eLife’s assessment vocabulary. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/mkbtp
avatar

MOUNCE RossORCID_LOGO

  • Director of Open Access Programmes, Arcadia Fund, London, United Kingdom
  • Life Sciences
  • recommender

Recommendations:  0

Review:  1

Areas of expertise
Cladistics, Academic Publishing, Bibliometrics, Scientometrics, Research on Research, Metaresearch, Preprints Some of the things I've written about can be found at my blog here: https://rossmounce.co.uk/