Erratum: Open Peer Review in Scientific Publishing: A Web Mining Study of PeerJ Authors and Reviewers (Journal of Data and Information Science (2016) 1:4 (60-80) DOI: 10.20309/jdis.201625);Open peer review in scientific publishing: A web mining study of peerj authors and reviewers

Journal of Data and Information Science

Volumn 1, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 60-80

  Wang, Peiling ^a   You, Sukjin ^b   Manasa, Rath ^a   Wolfram, Dietmar ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE   (United States)

Author keywords

Adoption of OPR; Open Access; Open Peer Review (OPR); Open research; Open Science; Scientific communication

Indexed keywords

EID: 85027976320     PISSN: 2096157X     EISSN: 2543683X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1515/jdis-2017-0016     Document Type: Erratum

References (30)

1. Baker, M. (2016). Statisticians issue warning over misuse of P values. Nature, 531(7593), 151.
2. Bartholomew, R.E. (2014). Science for sale: The rise of predatory journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 107(10), 384-385.
3. Björk, B.C., & Solomon, D. (2013). The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 914-923.
4. Bohannon, J. (2013). Who's afraid of peer review? Science, 342(6154), 60-65.
5. Bornmann, L., Wolf, M., & Daniel, H.D. (2012). Closed versus open reviewing of journal manuscripts: How far do comments differ in language use? Scientometrics, 91, 843-856.
6. th council meeting: Competitiveness (internal market, industry, research and space), Brussels, 26 and 27 May 2016. Retrieved on July 16, 2016, from http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/compet/2016/05/st09357_en16_pdf/.
7. Enserink, M. (2016). In dramatic statement, European leaders call for 'immediate' open access to all scientific papers by 2020. Science, News, May 27, 2016. Retrieved on July 16, 2016, from http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/dramatic-statement-european-leaders-call-immediate-open-access-all-scientific-papers/.
8. Groves, T. (2010). Is open peer review the fairest system? Yes. BMJ, 341, c6424.
9. Himmelstein, D. (2015). Publication delays at PLOS and 3,475 other journals. Satoshi Village. Retrieved on April 16, 2016, from http://blog.dhimmel.com/plos-and-publishing-delays/.
10. Hunter, J. (2012). Post-publication peer review: Opening up scientific conversation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6, 63.
11. Khan, K. (2010). Is open peer review the fairest system? No. BMJ, 341, c6425.
12. Kriegeskorte, N., Walther, A., & Deca, D. (2012). An emerging consensus for open evaluation: 18 visions for the future of scientific publishing. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6, 94.
13. Laakso, M., & Björk, B.C. (2012). Anatomy of open access publishing: A study of longitudinal development and internal structure. BMC Medicine, 10, 124.
14. Lee, C.J., Sugimoto, C.R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2-17.
15. McCook, A. (2006). Is peer review broken? Submissions are up, reviewers are overtaxed, and authors are lodging complaint after complaint about the process at top-tier journals. What's wrong with peer review? The Scientist, 20(2), 26-35.
16. McNutt, R.A., Evans, A.T., Fletcher, R.H., & Fletcher, S.W. (1990). The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263(10), 1371-1376.
17. Nicholas, D., Watkinson, A., Jamali, H.R., Herman, E., Tenopir, C., Volentine, R., Allard, S., & Levine, K. (2015). Peer review: Still king in the digital age. Learned Publishing, 28, 15-21.
18. Pöschl, U., & Koop, T. (2008). Interactive open access publishing and collaborative peer review for improved scientific communication and quality assurance. Information Services & User, 28, 105-107.
19. Rennie, D. (2016). Make peer review scientific. Nature, 535 (July 7), 31-33.
20. Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99(4), 178-182.
21. Soergel, D., Saunders, A., & McCallum, A. (2013). Open scholarship and peer review: A time for experimentation. Retrieved on April 17, 2016, from http://tinyurl.com/h3jbkdz/.
22. Sumner, T., & Shum, S.B. (1996). Open peer review & argumentation: Loosening the paper chains on journals. Retrieved on July 17, 2016, from https://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue5/jime/.
23. Taylor & Francis Group. (2015). Peer review in 2015: A global view. Retrieved on July 17, 2016, from http://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Peer-Review2015-white-paper.pdf/.
24. van Rooyen, S., Delamothe, T., & Evans, S.J.W. (2010). Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the Web: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 341, c5729.
25. van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S., Black, N., & Smith, R. (1999). Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: A randomised trial. British Medical Journal, 318(7175), 23-27.
26. Wang, P., Rath, R., Deike, M., & Wu, Q. (2016). Open post publication peer review: An innovation in scientific publishing. Retrieved on July 17, 2016, from https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/89432.
27. Walsh, E., Rooney, M., Appleby, L., & Wilkinson, G. (2000). Open peer review: A randomised controlled trial. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 176(1), 47-51.
28. Whither Science Publishing. (2012). As we stand on the brink of a new scientific age, how researchers should best communicate their findings and innovations is hotly debated in the publishing trenches. The Scientist, August 1. Retrieved on July 17, 2016, from http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/32378/title/Whither-Science-Publishing/.
29. Woosen, P. (2015). Journal publishers rethink a research mainstay: Peer review. The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 11. Retrieved on July 17, 2016, from http://www.chronicle.com/article/Academic-Publishing-Toward-a/236526.
30. Zielinska, E. (2013). Open-review journal launched. The Scientist, February 13. Retrieved on July 17, 2016, from http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/34367/title/OpenReview-Journal-Launched/.