New toolkits on the block: Peer review alternatives in scholarly communication

Expanding Perspectives on Open Science: Communities, Cultures and Diversity in Concepts and Practices - Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Electronic Publishing

Volumn , Issue , 2017, Pages 62-74

  Schmidt, Birgit ^a   Görögh, Edit ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GÖTTINGEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Open peer review; Open science; OpenUP; Review alternatives

Indexed keywords

ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING;

COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH; COMMON FEATURES; NETWORK-BASED SOLUTIONS; OPEN SCIENCE; OPENUP; PEER REVIEW; SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION; TOOLS AND METHODS;

REVIEWS;

EID: 85020740979     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.3233/978-1-61499-769-6-62     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (33)

1. Fang, F. C., and Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(42), 17028-17033. doi:10.1073/pnas.1212247109
2. OpenUP. GARRI-4-2015 - Innovative approach to release and disseminate research results and measure their impact. Accessed on 18 November 2016 at: http://cordis.europa.eu/programme/rcn/665153-en.html
3. Odell, J. D., Pollock, C. M. J. (2016). Open Peer Review for Digital Humanities Projects: A Modest Proposal. Accessed on 2 December 2016: https://goo.gl/JLPtlP
4. Chowdhry, A. (2015). Gatekeepers of the academic world: a recipe for good peer review. Adv Med Educ Pract 6: 329-330. doi:10.2147/AMEP.S83887
5. Dineen, M. (2012). Time to rethink peer review: Evaluating scholarly work in the Internet age. University Affairs / Affairs Universitaires (UA/AU). Accessed on 2 December 2016: http://www.universityaffairs.ca/opinion/in-my-opinion/time-to-rethink-peer-review/
6. Tattersall, A. (2015). For what it's worth - the open peer review landscape. Online Information Review 39(5): 649-663.
7. Ross-Hellauer, T. (2016a). Defining Open Peer Review: Part One - Competing Definitions. OpenAIREblog. Accessed on 16 November 2016: https://blogs.openaire.eu/?p=1371
8. Ross-Hellauer, T. (2016b). Defining Open Peer Review: Part Two - Seven Traits of OPR. OpenAIRE
9. blog. Accessed on 16 November 2016: https://blogs.openaire.eu/?p=1410
10. Callaway, E. (2016). Open peer review finds more takers. Nature, 539(7629), 343-343. doi:10.1038/nature.2016.20969
11. Harnad, S. (2000) The Invisible Hand of Peer Review, Exploit Interactive, issue 5, April 2000. Accessed on 2 December 2016: http://cogprints.org/1646/1/nature2.html
12. Pöschl, U. (2012). 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, 6. doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00033
13. Hunter, J. (2012). Post-Publication Peer Review: Opening Up Scientific Conversation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6. doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00063
14. Priem, J., & Hemminger, B. M. (2012). Decoupling the scholarly journal. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6. doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00019
15. Björk, B.-C. (2015). Have the "mega-journals" reached the limits to growth? PeerJ, 3, e981. doi:10.7717/peerj.981
16. Deenadayalan, Y., Grimmer-Somers, K., Prior, M., & Kumar, S. (2008). How to run an effective journal club: a systematic review. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 14(5), 898-911. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.01050.x
17. Harnad, S. (1979). Creative disagreement. The Sciences 19: 18-20.
18. Smith, R. (1999) Opening up BMJ peer review. A beginning that should lead to complete transparency. British Medical Journal, 318, 4-5.
19. Frontiers. Collaborative Peer Review. Accessed on 06.03.2017: http://home.frontiersin.org/about/review-system
20. Pöschl, U. (2012). 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, 6. doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00033
21. Akst, J. (2015). PubPeer Founders Revealed. The Scientist. Accessed on March 20, 2017: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/43877/title/PubPeer-Founders-Revealed/
22. PRE White Paper. (2016). Peer Review: Transparency, Standards and Training - Key Findings from Peer Review Evaluation (PRE) 2016 Survey
23. McGlashan, D., Hadley C. (2017a). The rising tide of preprint servers. Inlexio blog. Accessed on 06.03.2017: https://www.inlexio.com/rising-tide-preprint-servers
24. McGlashan, D., Hadley C. (2017b). Preprint servers: challenges and consequences. Inlexio blog. Accessed on 06.03.2017: https://www.inlexio.com/preprint-servers-challenges-consequences/
25. Bourne, P. E., and Polka, J. K., Vale, R. D., & Kiley, R. (2016). Ten simple rules for considering preprints. PeerJ Preprints. https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.2669v1
26. Wellcome Trust. (2017). Preprints: we're supporting calls for a Central Service. Accessed on 10 March 2017: https://wellcome.ac.uk/news/preprints-were-supporting-calls-central-service
27. Tennant, J. (2017). What if you could peer review the arXiv? ScienceOpen.com blog. Accessed on March 20 2017: http://blog.scienceopen.com/2016/04/what-if-you-could-peer-review-the-arxiv/
28. Open Scholar. (2016). Open access repositories start to offer overlay peer review services. Open Scholar. CIC. Accessed on March 20, 2017: http://www.openscholar.org.uk/institutional-repositories-start-to-offer-peer-review-services/
29. W3C. (2017). Web Annotation Data Model. Accessed on March 28, 2017: https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/
30. de Alfaro, L. (2016). TrueReview: A Platform for Post-Publication Peer Review. arXiv:1608.07878v1
31. Ross-Hellauer, A., Schmidt, B., Deppe, A. (2016c). Novel Models for Open Peer Review. OpenAIRE deliverable (not published).
32. Tattersall, A. (2016). Open Peer Review. In: Tattersall, A. (ed.) Altmetrics: A Practical Guide for Librarians, Researchers and Academics. Accessed on 2 December 2016: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/100874/
33. COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers 2013. Available at http://publicationethics.org/files/Peer%20review%20guidelines-0.pdf