Prophy

Publishers pay for typesetting, hosting and editorial systems. The reviewer's time is usually the one line left at zero. Should it stay there? Pay reviewers, change what we ask of them, or stop running journal #PeerReview the way we do now. Four panelists from the publisher and vendor side take the question live, each with an answer prepared in advance. Bring yours. #ScholarlyPublishing

Cross-border research needs cross-border coordination. 🇪🇺 Continuing with the ESF - European Science Foundation! ESF connects research funding and performing organizations across Europe, coordinating collaborative programs and expert reviews that strengthen the continent's shared research infrastructure. Proud to support research that transcends national boundaries.

Open access publishing needs sustainable infrastructure. 📖 Continuing with ]u[ Ubiquity! This UK-based publisher specializes in open access journals and books for university presses and scholarly societies, making rigorous research freely available to readers worldwide. Proud to support their mission of accessible scholarship.

Germany's medical research finds a steady champion. 🇩🇪 Continuing with Else Kröner-Fresenius-Stiftung! As one of Germany's largest private funders of medical research, EKFS supports clinical and translational research spanning nephrology, immunology, and beyond, alongside dedicated physician-scientist career programs. Proud to continue supporting their mission.

More than 100 million researchers now have a profile in Prophy. Each profile ties one person to their papers, their affiliations and the people they have published with. That is what makes the number useful for #PeerReview: the same search that shows a researcher knows the field also shows whether they have published with the author or applicant. The record keeps growing. Last week alone added 342,434 new author profiles as fresh work reached the published literature. A reviewer list drawn up five years ago cannot include those people. A search across the full record can. Behind the profiles sit 197 million papers, 108,000 journals and 108,000 institutions in 225 countries, refreshed continuously. If your invitations keep going to the same few names, try a search on a manuscript or proposal you are handling this week: https://www.prophy.ai/ #ScholarlyPublishing

People often ask us: how do you know that your reviewer suggestions are good? And now we know! Honestly, it is a hard question. I have written more than once that good peer reviewers are a broad and poorly defined class. “You know it when you see it”, but not otherwise. So, my answer was that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. But now we have a number, and as far as I know, we are the only ones who have one. Four out of five researchers we suggested as referees, among those who replied, confirmed that they are, indeed, experts on the subject. The invitations came from the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) at the University of Sussex Business School, in a novelty study that spanned disciplines and hundreds of thousands of profiles. They ran it for their own purposes, so the result was obtained independently of us. Prophy was the one who had provided the data to them. This is actually a remarkably strong result, because it means that we hit the target. Now we can finally say how good our suggestions are.