[RQC-interest] Review Quality Collector for journals goes into pilot testing

["Prechelt, Lutz" <prechelt@inf.fu-berlin.de>]

Dear members of rqc-interest,

 

as most of you may remember (and many not, because they are new members), Review Quality Collector (RQC) is an initiative for improving the quality of scientific peer review.

Its core is a mechanism that supplies a reviewer with a receipt for their work for each journal year.

That receipt certifies not only quantity, but quality of reviews, based on journal-specific criteria of timeliness, helpfulness for decision, and helpfulness for authors and determined as a ranking percentile to avoid grade inflation.

A proof-of-concept implementation of RQC aiming at conferences has been in use since 2016, the much more complicated implementation for journals was yet missing.

 

My last post to this list was five years ago. A lot has happened in the meantime, but nothing of much interest to you.

This changed a few days ago, when the first RQC adapter for a popular manuscript handling system, OJS, became available.

 

I am currently looking for journals (among the 30,000 that are using OJS) who want to be pilot users for validating the design of the journal part of the RQC service. After that, regular use can start -- which I hope is of much interest to many of you.

 

Please have a look (or another look) at the ideas of RQC and consider how you may want to help making its goal a reality: That reviewing is no longer a near-invisible part of what researchers do, but rather a recognized source of reputation for them.

 

https://reviewqualitycollector.org/

 

Questions? Any at all? Please write to me, I am happy to explain.

Ideas? Please write to me, I want to hear about them!

Know others who will want to know about RQC? Please point them out to me.

Hate the RQC idea? Please write to me as well so we can discuss!

 

My scarcest resource currently is feedback.

If you care about any of this at all: please write.

 

  Lutz

 

P.S.: I welcome the 25 new members on this list. If you are wondering why I put you on it: It was because I found some writing of you or about you that strongly suggested you are interested in improving peer review.

 

Prof. Dr. Lutz Prechelt; prechelt@inf.fu-berlin.de

Institut f. Informatik; Freie Universität Berlin

Takustr. 9, R.014; 14195 Berlin; Germany

+49 30 838 75115; http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/w/SE/