Multi-stage open peer review: Scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation

Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience

Volumn 6, Issue JUL, 2012, Pages

  Pöschl, Ulrich ^a  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR CHEMISTRY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Interactive discussion; Open access publishing; Open evaluation; Open peer commentary; Public peer review; Self regulation; Transparency

Indexed keywords

ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY; DEREGULATION; ECONOMICS; PUBLISHING; QUALITY ASSURANCE; QUALITY CONTROL; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT; TRANSPARENCY;

INTERACTIVE DISCUSSION; OPEN ACCESS; OPEN EVALUATION; OPEN PEER COMMENTARY; PEER REVIEW; SELF REGULATION;

REVIEWS;

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; AUTOREGULATION; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; HEALTH CARE COST; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; PEER REVIEW; PREDICTION; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; STATISTICAL MODEL; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 84914179029     PISSN: None     EISSN: 16625188     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00033     Document Type: Review

References (30)

1. Albarede, F. (2009). AGU announces open peer review experiment. Eos (Washington DC) 90, 276.
2. Bodenschatz, E., and Pöschl, U. (2008). “Open access and quality assurance,” in Open Access Challenges and Perspectives – A Handbook, European Commission and German Commission for UNESCO. Available at:http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/open-access-handbook_en.pdf
3. Bollen, J., Van de Sompel, H., Hagberg, A., Bettencourt, L., Chute, R., Rodriguez, M. A., and Balakireva, L. (2009). Clickstream data yields high-resolution maps of science. PLoS ONE 4, e4803. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004803
4. Bornmann, L., and Daniel, H. D. (2010a). Reliability of reviewers’ ratings when using public peer review: a case study. Learn. Publ. 23, 124-131.
5. Bornmann, L., and Daniel, H.-D. (2010b). Do author-suggested reviewers rate submissions more favorably than editor-suggested reviewers? A study on atmospheric chemistry and physics. PLoS ONE 5, e13345. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013345
6. Bornmann, L., Marx, W., Schier, H., Thor, A., and Daniel, H.-D. (2010). From black box to white box at open access journals: predictive validity of manuscript reviewing and editorial decisions at atmospheric chemistry and physics. Res. Eval. 19, 105-118.
7. Bornmann, L., Neuhaus, C., and Daniel, H.-D. (2011a). The effect of a two-stage publication process on the Journal Impact Factor: a case study on the interactive open access journal atmospheric chemistry and physics. Scientometrics 86, 93-97.
8. Bornmann, L., Schier, H., Marx, W., and Daniel, H.-D. (2011b). Is interactive open access publishing able to identify high-impact submissions? A study on the predictive validity of atmospheric chemistry and physics by using percentile rank classes. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 62, 61-71.
9. Copernicus. (2011). A Short History of Interactive Open Access Publishing. Göttingen: Copernicus Publications.
10. David, P. A., and Uhlir, P. F. (2005). “Creating the information commons for e-science: toward institutional policies and guidelines for action,” Workshop Proceedings, (Paris: UNESCO).
11. Economist Academic Publishing. (2011). Of Goats and Headaches. Available at:http://www.economist.com/node/18744177 [accessed May 26, 2011].
12. European Commission and German Commission for UNESCO. (2008). Open Access Opportunities and Challenges – A Handbook. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/open-access-handbook_en.pdf
13. European Geosciences Union. (2010). EGU Position Statement on the Status of Discussion Papers Published in EGU Interactive Open Access Journals. Available at: http://www.egu.eu/statements/position-statement-on-the-status-of-discussion-papers-published-in-egu-interactive-open-access-journals-4-july-2010.html
14. Golden, M., and Schultz, D. M. (2012). Quantifying the volunteer effort of scientific peer reviewing. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 93, 337-345.
15. Lee, C. (2012). Open peer review by a selected-papers network. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 6:1. doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00001
16. Max Planck Society. (2003). Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities. Available at: http://www.zim.mpg.de/openaccess-berlin/berlin_declaration.pdf
17. Müller, U. (2008). Peer-Review-Verfahren zur Qualitätssicherung von Open-Access-Zeitschriften – Systematische Klassifikation und empirische Untersuchung. Ph.D. thesis, Humboldt University, Berlin.
18. Pöschl, U. (2004). Interactive journal concept for improved scientific publishing and quality assurance. Learn. Pub. 17, 105-113.
19. Pöschl, U. (2009a). Interactive open access peer review: the atmospheric chemistry and physics model. Against Grain 21, 26-34.
20. Pöschl, U. (2009b). Interactive comment on “On the validity of representing hurricanes as Carnot heat engine” by A. M. Makarieva et al. Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss. 8, S12406-S12411.
21. Pöschl, U. (2010a). Interactive open access publishing and public peer review: the effectiveness of transparency and self-regulation in scientific quality assurance. IFLA J. 36, 40-46.
22. Pöschl, U. (2010b). Interactive open access publishing and peer review: the effectiveness and perspectives of transparency and self-regulation in scientific communication and evaluation. LIBER Q. 19, 293-314.
23. Pöschl, U. (2010c). Arne Richter: A multi-talented character who has made a difference in scientific publishing, EGU General Assembly 2010, Vienna. Available at: http://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/pr_acp_poschl_arne_richter_wien2010_up31.pdf, 2010
24. Pöschl, U. (2011). “On the origin and development of interactive open access publishing,” in A Short History of Interactive Open Access Publishing (Göttingen: Copernicus Publications).
25. Pöschl, U., and Koop, T. (2008). “Interactive open access publishing and collaborative peer review for improved scientific communication and quality assurance,” in Information Services & Use, 28 (APE 2008: Academic Publishing in Europe, Quality and Publishing, IOS Press), 105-107. Available at: http://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/pr_acp_poeschl_koop_infoservuse_2008_intoapub.pdf
26. Priem, J., and Hemminger, B. M. (2012). Decoupling the scholarly journal. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 6:19. doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00019
27. Sandewall, E. (2006). Opening of the process. A hybrid system of peer review. Nature.
28. Sandewall, E. (1997). Publishing and reviewing in the ETAI. Electron. Trans. Artif. Intell. 1, 1-12.
29. Sandewall, E. (2012). Maintaining live discussion in two-stage open peer review. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 6:9. doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00009
30. Schultz, D. M. (2010). Rejection rates for journals publishing in the atmospheric sciences. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc.231-243.