For what it's worth - The open peer review landscape

Online Information Review

Volumn 39, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 649-663

  Tattersall, Andy ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Altmetrics; Open Access; Open peer review; Peer review; Post publication peer review

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER APPLICATIONS; SOCIAL NETWORKING (ONLINE);

ACADEMIC COMMUNITY; ALTMETRICS; DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH; PEER REVIEW; SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION; STANDARD MODEL;

OPEN ACCESS;

EID: 84941957371     PISSN: 14684527     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/OIR-06-2015-0182     Document Type: Review

References (29)

1. Adrian, A. (2008), "No one knows you are a dog: identity and reputation in virtual worlds", Computer Law & Security Review, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 366-374, available at: www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364908000290 (accessed 23 June 2015).
2. Anderson, K. (2014), "Stick to your ribs: the problems with calling comments 'post-publication peer-review' ", The Scholarly Kitchen, available at: http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2014/04/15/stick-to-your-ribs-the-problems-with-calling-comments-post-publication-peer-review/(accessed 28 May 2015).
3. Anonymous (2015), "Shit my reviewers say" (online), available at: http://shitmyreviewerssay. tumblr.com/(accessed 13 August 2015).
4. Baxt, W.G., Waeckerle, J.F. and Berlin, J.A. (1998), "Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance", Annals of Emergency Medicine, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 310-317, available at: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019606449870006X (accessed 23 June 2015).
5. Buckels, E.E., Trapnell, P.D. and Paulhus, D.L. (2014), "Trolls just want to have fun", Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 67, September, pp. 97-102, available at: www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0191886914000324 (accessed 23 June 2015).
6. Cantor, M. and Gero, S. (2015), "The missing metric: quantifying contributions of reviewers", Royal Society Open Science, Vol. 2 No. 2, available at: http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royopensci/2/2/140540.full.pdf (accessed 23 June 2015).
7. DiNucci, D. (1999), "Fragmented future", Print, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 32-34.
8. Fitzpatrick, K. (2011), Planned Obsolescence: Publishing, Technology, and the Future of the Academy, NYU Press, New York, NY, available at: https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=wF4ry3m9ulMC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Planned+Obsolescence: +Publishing, +Technology, +and+the+Future+of+the+Academy &ots = KT--wEb8UD&sig =FwZqj4RM-HfM2dKEc9d-RQQlFGM (accessed 17 June 2015).
9. Ford, E. (2013), "Defining and characterizing open peer review: a review of the literature", Journal of Scholarly Publishing, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 311-326, available at: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal-of-scholarly-publishing/v044/44.4.ford.html (accessed 23 June 2015).
10. Godlee, F., Gale, C. and Martyn, C. (1998), "Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial", JAMA, Vol. 280 No. 3, pp. 237-240, available at: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx? articleid=187748 (accessed 23 June 2015).
11. Jefferson, T., Alderson, P., Wager, E. and Davidoff, F. (2002), "Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review", JAMA, Vol. 287 No. 21, pp. 2784-2786, available at: http://jama. jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=194989 (accessed 23 June 2015).
12. Joinson, A.N. (2007), "Disinhibition and the internet", in Gackenbach, J. (Ed.), Psychology and the Internet: Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, and Transpersonal Implications, 2nd ed., Elsevier Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 75-92, available at: https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=-cyPiIDZy4YC&oi=fnd&pg=PA75&dq=disinhibition+and+the +internet&ots =MBnm-mx2iW&sig =usBcKwSOMyd5CloTmvNhoEI5BYI (accessed 23 June 2015).
13. Klempka, A. and Stimson, A. (2014), Anonymous Communication on the Internet and Trolling, Concordia University, Saint Paul, MN, available at: https://comjournal.csp.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2013/12/TrollingPaper-Allison-Klempka.pdf (accessed 23 June 2015).
14. Larivière, V. and Gingras, Y. (2009), "The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007", Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 858-862, available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.21011/abstract (accessed 23 June 2015).
15. Lee, C, Sugimoto, C. and Zhang, G. (2013), "Bias in peer review", Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 99 No. 4, pp. 178-182, available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.22784/full (accessed 23 June 2015).
16. Mandavilli, A. (2011), "Trial by twitter", Nature, Vol. 469 No. 7330, pp. 286-287, available at: www. axeleratio.com/news/trial-by-twitter-nature2011.pdf (accessed 31 March 2015).
17. Pearce, N., Weller, M., Scanlon, E. and Kinsley, S. (2010), "Digital scholarship considered: how new technologies could transform academic work", Education, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 33-44, available at: www.ineducation.ca/article/digital-scholarship-considered-how-new-technologies-could-transform-academic-work (accessed 23 June 2015).
18. Phillips, C.V. (2001), "The economics of 'more research is needed'", International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 771-776, available at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11511601 (accessed 23 June 2015).
19. Remler, D. (2014), "Are 90% of academic papers really never cited? Reviewing the literature on academic citations", The Impact Blog, available at: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/23/academic-papers-citation-rates-remler/(accessed 23 June 2015).
20. Rennie, D. (1998), "Freedom and responsibility in medical publication: setting the balance right", JAMA, Vol. 280 No. 3, pp. 300-302, available at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9676691 (accessed 23 June 2015).
21. Rowland, F. (2002), "The peer-review process", Learned Publishing, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 247-258, available at: www.ingentaconnect.com/content/alpsp/lp/2002/00000015/00000004/art00002 (accessed 23 June 2015).
22. Shirky, C. (2008), "It's not information overload. It's filter failure", Web 2.0 Expo, New York, NY, available at: www.web2expo.com/webexny2008/public/schedule/detail/4817 (accessed 29 May 2015).
23. Smith, R. (1999), "Opening up BMJ peer review: a beginning that should lead to complete transparency", British Medical Journal, Vol. 318 No. 4, pp. 4-5.
24. Smith, R. (2006), "Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals", Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Vol. 99 No. 4, pp. 178-182, available at: http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/99/4/178.short (accessed 23 June 2015).
25. Suber, P. (2012), Open Access, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, available at: http://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/9780262517638-Open-Access-PDF-Version.pdf (accessed 29 March 2015).
26. Sullivan, M. (2014), "Peer review and open access", OpenStax, available at: http://cnx.org/contents/1137808f-5dd6-40d0-b60f-3ddb518122c2@2 (accessed 31 March 2015).
27. Van Noorden, R. (2014), "The new dilemma of online peer review: too many places to post?", Nature Newsblog, available at: http://blogs.nature.com/news/2014/03/the-new-dilemma-of-online-peer-review-too-many-places-to-post.html (accessed 30 May 2015).
28. Van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S., Black, N and Smith, R. (1999), "Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial", BMJ, Vol. 318 No. 23, pp. 23-27, available at: www.bmj.com/content/318/7175/23.short (accessed 23 June 2015).
29. Walsh, E., Rooney, M., Appleby, L. and Wilkinson, G. (2000), "Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial", The British Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 176 No. 1, pp. 47-51, available at: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/176/1/47.short (accessed 23 June 2015).