Abstract # 88:

Scheduled for Saturday, August 26, 2017 10:30 AM-11:30 AM: (Grand Ballroom) Featured Speaker


K. A. Phillips1,2, P. A. Garber3 and C. N. Ross2,4
1Department of Psychology , Trinity University, San Antonio, TX 78212, USA, 2Southwest National Primate Research Center, 3Univ. of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, 4Texas A&M University- San Antonio
     Scientific peer review is essential. At its best, it improves the quality of papers submitted, improves the work through the review process, and detects fraud and plagiarism. Peer review results in better science. Expert curation is needed now more than ever – with public confidence in science and data eroding (e.g., recent polls erroneous in their predictions of the Brexit and U.S. election results), high profile retractions, and conflicts of interests. We need to retain quality reviewers, but also attract, develop, and encourage the next generation of reviewers. We recognize that primatologists generally receive limited professional training on peer review. The prevailing approach (and not just in primatology) seems to be that if you are a scientist and have published, then you are qualified to be a reviewer. Additionally, reliability, efficacy, and potential bias are topics of controversy. If we believe that peer review is central to our science and results in advancing our field, then we need to improve the efficiency of peer review through training and identifying best practices. This forum is designed to begin the conversation concerning the peer review system for primatology and will focus on identifying best practices in peer review, and implicit bias in scientific publishing. The forum will feature panel presentations and group discussions to foster an open dialogue on these issues.