Outfalls of the Publons.com award has brought attention from an impressive freelance scientific journalist (Dalmeet Singh writes articles for most prestigious journals like Science, Nature, …) who kindly invited me to contribute to his article via giving an email interview about the peer review process. It resulted into a rich article that has been published in Undark Magazine, an american journal that is funded by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT, USA).
[Award] T. Derrien received 2018 peer review “Publons” award “Top 1%”
T. Derrien was awarded with Publons.com award for “the top 1% of reviewers in each field who performed the most verified pre-publication peer reviews on Publons for the 2018 global Peer Review Awards.”
This emphasizes the high involvment of scientists into the evaluation process for increasing the quality of science. It also acknowledges the high curiosity and the altruistic qualities that are required for a peer-review process of quality.
On Publons.com website, the award is described as follows.
“The top 1% of reviewers in each of the 22 Essential Science Indicators (ESI) research fields. Rankings are calculated by number of verified pre-publication reviews performed and added to Publons between 1 September 2017 and 1 September 2018. Reviews were attributed to a ESI field based on the journal the review was performed for. We added a 23rd field, “Assorted”, to celebrate reviewers whose contributions were for the small amount of journals on Publons could not be directly matched to an ESI field.
We used the ESI field categorisation because these are broad research areas that align with the Web of Science — the most trusted citation index for scientific and scholarly research.”