In a nutshell: The four peer review stages in RIO explained

Having received a number of requests to further clarify our peer review process, we hereby provide a concise summary of the four author- and journal-organised peer review stages applicable to all research article publications submitted to RIO

 

Stage 1: Author-organised pre-submission review

Optional. This review process can take place in the ARPHA Writing Tool (AWT) during the authoring process BEFORE the manuscript is submitted to the journal. It works much like discussion of a manuscript within an institutional department, akin to soliciting comments and changes on a collaborate Google Doc file. The author can invite reviewers via the “+Reviewers” button located on the upper horizontal bar of the AWT. Then, the author(s) and the reviewers are able to work together in the ARPHA online environment through an inline comment/reply interface. The reviewers are then expected to submit a concise evaluation form and a final statement.

The pre-submission review is not mandatory, but we strongly encourage it. Pre-submission reviews will be published along with the article and will bear a DOI and citation details. Articles reviewed before submission are labelled “Reviewed” when published. Manuscripts that have not been peer-reviewed before submission can be published on the basis of in-house editorial and technical checks, and will be labelled “Reviewable”.

If there is no pre-submission review, the authors have to provide a public statement explaining why they do not have, or need a pre-submission review for this work (e.g. a manuscript has been previously reviewed; a grant proposal has already been accepted for funding, etc.).

 

Stage 2: Pre-submission technical and editorial check with in-house editors or relevant members of RIO’s editorial board

Mandatory. Provided by the journal’s editorial office within the ARPHA Writing Tool when a manuscript is submitted to the journal. If necessary, it can take several rounds, until the manuscript is improved to the level appropriate for direct submission and publication in the journal. This stage ensures format compliance with RIO’s requirements, as well as relevant funding-body and discipline-specific requirements.

 

Stage 3: Community-sourced post-publication peer review

Continuously available. All articles published in RIO are available for post-publication review, regardless of them being subject to a pre-submission review or not, or their review status (Reviewable, Reviewed, or RIO-validated). The author may decide to publish a revised version of an article anytime based on feedback received from the community. Putatively, even years after publication of the original work our system allows a review to be published alongside the paper.  

 

Stage 4: Journal-organized post-publication peer review

Optional. If the author(s) request it, the journal can additionally organize a formal peer review from discipline-specific researchers in a timely manner. Authors may suggest reviewers during the submission process, but RIO may not necessarily invite suggested reviewers.

Once an editor and reviewers are invited by the journal, the review process happens much like the conventional peer review in many other journals, but is entirely open and transparent. It is also subject to a small additional fee, in order to cover the management of this process. When this review stage is successfully completed and the editors have decided to validate the article, the revised article version is labelled “RIO-validated”.

RIO supports Publons in finding this year’s Sentinels of Science

Peer Review Week is coming and this year’s topic “Recognition for Review” is rather close to our hearts!

Developing the concept of RIO, among our central goals was to create a workflow that allows scientists – authors, reviewers and editors alike – to get the maximum credit for their work.

peer review week 2016 close

RIO implements one of the most transparent peer review processes, allowing authors to choose from several peer-review options.

The journal offers the unique opportunity for pre-submission peer review, where authors can invite mentors, colleagues and fellow scientists to review the manuscript and contribute, still during the authoring process.

Additionally, we power post-publication peer review, where all registered users have the option to publicly review journal articles.

RIO, alongside all other Pensoft journals, is also proud to highlight its partnership with Publons and showcase our commitment to honouring the efforts of our expert peer reviewers.

As part of Peer Review Week 2016, we support Publons in their excellent Sentinels of Science Awards initiative, which will put the spotlight on the most prolific heroes of peer review over the past year.

Just like us, Publons recognize that bad science slows down the rate of discovery. Expert peer reviewers protect us from bad science. These efforts on the front line help us in finding cures, develop innovative technologies and realise human potential.

To get recognized for your contributions to speeding up science this Peer Review Week Sign up to Publons now and effortlessly track, verify and showcase every review you do for RIO, all other Pensoft titles, and across the rest of the world’s journals.

*

For more information visit: https://blog.publons.com/unveiling-the-sentinels-of-science-for-prw16/

Publishing grant proposals, presubmission

There are a lot of really interesting works being published over at Research Ideas and Outcomes (RIO).  If you aren’t already following the updates you can do so via RSS, Twitter, or via email (scroll to the bottom for sign-up).

In this post I’m going to discuss why Chad Hammond’s contribution is so remarkable and why it could represent an exciting model for a more transparent and more immediate future of scholarly communications.

Version1

 

 

 

So, what’s special?

Well, to state the obvious first: it’s a grant proposal, not a research article. RIO Journal has published quite a lot of research proposals now, it’s becoming a real strength of the journal. But that’s not the really interesting thing about it. The really cool thing is that Chad published this grant proposal with RIO before it was submitted it to the funder (Canadian Institutes of Health Research) for evaluation.

You’ll see the publication date of Version 1 of the work is 24th March 2016. Pleasingly, after publication in RIO Chad’s proposal was evaluated by CIHR and awarded research funding. Chad received news of this in late April:

…and the story gets even better from here because thanks to RIO’s unique technology called ARPHA, Chad was able to re-import his published article back into editing mode, to update the proposal to acknowledge that it had been funded:

This proposal was submitted to and received funding from the annual Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) competition for postdoctoral fellowships.

The updated proposal was then checked by the editorial team and republished as an updated version of the original proposal: Version 2, making-use of CrossMark technology to formally link the two versions and to make sure readers are always made aware if a newer version of the work exists. Chad’s updated proposal now has a little ‘Funded’ button appended to it (see below), to indicate that this proposal has been successfully funded. We hope to see many more such successfully funded proposals published at RIO.

Title and metadata

 

 

 

With permission given, Chad was also able to supply some of the reviewer comments passed to him from CIHR reviewers as supplementary data to the updated Version 2 proposal. These will undoubtedly provide invaluable insight into reviewing processes for many.

Finally, for funders and publishing-tech geeks: you should really take note of the lovely machine-readable XML-formatted version of Chad’s proposal. Pensoft has machine-readable XML output as standard, not just PDF and HTML. Funding agencies around the world would do well to think closely about the value of having XML-formatted machine-readable grant proposal submissions. There’s serious value to this and I think it’s something we’ll see more of in the future. Pensoft is actively looking to work with funders to develop further these ideas and approaches for genuinelyadding-value to scholarly communications.
RIO is truly an innovative journal don’t you think?

References

Version 1:
Hammond C (2016) Widening the circle of care: An arts-based, participatory dialogue with stakeholders on cancer care for First Nations, Inuit,and Métis peoples in Ontario, Canada. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e8615. doi: 10.3897/rio.2.e8615

Version 2:
Hammond C (2016) Widening the circle of care: An arts-based, participatory dialogue with stakeholders on cancer care for First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples in Ontario, Canada. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e9115. doi: 10.3897/rio.2.e9115

 

This blog post was originally published on Ross Mounce’s blog.