Many studies in information science have looked at the growth of science. In this study, we re-examine the question of the growth of science. To do this we (i) use current data up to publication year 2012 and (ii) analyse it across all disciplines and also separately for the natural sciences and for the medical and health sciences. Furthermore, the data are analysed with an advanced statistical technique - segmented regression analysis - which can identify specific segments with similar growth rates in the history of science. The study is based on two different sets of bibliometric data: (1) The number of publications held as source items in the Web of Science (WoS, Thomson Reuters) per publication year and (2) the number of cited references in the publications of the source items per cited reference year. We have looked at the rate at which science has grown since the mid-1600s. In our analysis of cited references we identified three growth phases in the development of science, which each led to growth rates tripling in comparison with the previous phase: from less than 1% up to the middle of the 18th century, to 2 to 3% up to the period between the two world wars and 8 to 9% to 2012.

Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references

The December issue of CSP has a tradition of acknowledging all those who have contrib-uted their precious time to reviewing papers submitted to the journal. We wish to take ad-vantage of the opportunity in this Editorial to assess the peer review process.Peer review has been used for more than three centuries to sustain quality standards for publication and plays an important role in scientific communication. Reviewers are the “guardians” of scientific publication, filtering out low-quality and poorly reported con-tents. Only the periodicals that use this system are included in the most important bib-liographic databases. However, the system is far from perfect

/pdf/the-value-of-peer-review-1hvyafi9pt.pdf

The value of peer review

This article is concerned with developing a philosophical approach to a number of significant changes to academic publishing, and specifically the global journal knowledge system wrought by a range of new digital technologies that herald the third age of the journal as an electronic, interactive and mixed-media form of scientific communication. The paper emerges from an Editors' Collective, a small New Zealand-based organisation comprised of editors and reviewers of academic journals mostly in the fields of education and philosophy. The paper is the result of a collective writing process.

/pdf/towards-a-philosophy-of-academic-publishing-2gdt12dpgp.pdf

Towards a philosophy of academic publishing

This paper examines research on peer review between 1969 and 2015 by looking at records indexed from the Scopus database. Although it is often argued that peer review has been poorly investigated, we found that the number of publications in this field doubled from 2005. A half of this work was indexed as research articles, a third as editorial notes and literature reviews and the rest were book chapters or letters. We identified the most prolific and influential scholars, the most cited publications and the most important journals in the field. Co-authorship network analysis showed that research on peer review is fragmented, with the largest group of co-authors including only 2.1% of the whole community. Co-citation network analysis indicated a fragmented structure also in terms of knowledge. This shows that despite its central role in research, peer review has been examined only through small-scale research projects. Our findings would suggest that there is need to encourage collaboration and knowledge sharing across different research communities.

Fragments of peer review: A quantitative analysis of the literature (1969-2015).

We consider how Agenda, a feminist journal located in the Global South, and Africa specifically, mediates and balances the demands of peer-reviewed and peer-sanctioned knowledge production with the requisite gender, race and space/place equality in the context of mechanisms that often privilege particular ways of knowing. The article addresses the following questions: What forces inhibit and marginalise women’s voices generally, and black women’s voices in particular, from feminist knowledge production and dissemination? How do we sustain our feminist positioning and critique in publishing in an environment where gender equality in the various socioeconomic spheres of life remains elusive and where gender violence against women is rife, and this in the context of ‘scholarly’ peer review? In particular, how do we ensure that the voices of those most marginalised by these inequalities and social forces are heard in ways that matter – and, indeed, count – in scholarly publishing? Informing these ques...

Knowledge production, critique and peer review in feminist publishing : reflections from Agenda

Find the secret to improve the quality of life by reading this do we still need peer review an argument for change. This is a kind of book that you need now. Besides, it can be your favorite book to read after having this book. Do you ask why? Well, this is a book that has different characteristic with others. You may not need to know who the author is, how well-known the work is. As wise word, never judge the words from who speaks, but make the words as your good value to your life.

Julia Ulyannikova

Papers

Do We Still Need Peer Review? An Argument for Change

Engaging First-year Students in Meaningful Library Research: A Practical Guide for Teaching Faculty