Reporting of Hybrid Data and the Difficulties with Cross-Discipline Research Techniques.

O'Rourke, MB; Padula, MP

Reporting of Hybrid Data and the Difficulties with Cross-Discipline Research Techniques.

O'Rourke, MB Padula, MP

Permalink

Publisher:: MDPI AG
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Proteomes, 2020, 8, (4)
Issue Date:: 2020-11-23

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download full textAdobe PDF (903.88 kB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	O'Rourke, MB
dc.contributor.author	Padula, MP
dc.date.accessioned	2021-01-14T04:23:19Z
dc.date.available	2020-11-20
dc.date.available	2021-01-14T04:23:19Z
dc.date.issued	2020-11-23
dc.identifier.citation	Proteomes, 2020, 8, (4)
dc.identifier.issn	2227-7382
dc.identifier.issn	2227-7382
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/145427
dc.description.abstract	Peer review is the way in which we, as scientists, criticise, check, and confirm the findings of our colleagues. The process of peer review relies on individuals in all fields applying their particular expertise and determining if they agree with the findings submitted for publication. In recent years, there has been a significant rise in the number of manuscripts submitted for publication that draw from a range of disparate and complementary fields. This has created the curious situation where an expert may be requested to review a manuscript that is only partially within their immediate field of expertise. The issue that arises is that, without full knowledge of the data, techniques, methodologies, and principles that are presented, it is difficult for reviewers to make properly informed decisions, especially when it can take an entire career to reach that specific level of expertise in a single field. From this perspective, we explore these issues and also provide a commentary on how peer review could evolve in the context of a changing cross-disciplinarily-focused scientific landscape.
dc.format	Electronic
dc.language	eng
dc.publisher	MDPI AG
dc.relation.ispartof	Proteomes
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.3390/proteomes8040035
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subject	0601 Biochemistry and Cell Biology
dc.title	Reporting of Hybrid Data and the Difficulties with Cross-Discipline Research Techniques.
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	8
utslib.location.activity	Switzerland
utslib.for	0601 Biochemistry and Cell Biology
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Science
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Science/School of Life Sciences
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
utslib.copyright.status	open_access	*
pubs.consider-herdc	false
dc.date.updated	2021-01-14T04:23:07Z
pubs.issue	4
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	8
utslib.citation.issue	4

Abstract:

Peer review is the way in which we, as scientists, criticise, check, and confirm the findings of our colleagues. The process of peer review relies on individuals in all fields applying their particular expertise and determining if they agree with the findings submitted for publication. In recent years, there has been a significant rise in the number of manuscripts submitted for publication that draw from a range of disparate and complementary fields. This has created the curious situation where an expert may be requested to review a manuscript that is only partially within their immediate field of expertise. The issue that arises is that, without full knowledge of the data, techniques, methodologies, and principles that are presented, it is difficult for reviewers to make properly informed decisions, especially when it can take an entire career to reach that specific level of expertise in a single field. From this perspective, we explore these issues and also provide a commentary on how peer review could evolve in the context of a changing cross-disciplinarily-focused scientific landscape.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/145427