Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers

PLoS ONE

Volumn 12, Issue 12, 2017, Pages

  Ross Hellauer, Tony ^a   Deppe, Arvid ^b   Schmidt, Birgit ^c  

^a KNOW CENTER   (Austria)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KASSEL   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GÖTTINGEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; EDITOR; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; IDENTITY; MALE; PEER REVIEW; SATISFACTION; AGED; ATTITUDE; MIDDLE AGED; WRITING; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; AGED; ATTITUDE; AUTHORSHIP; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 85038212313     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189311     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2012 oct; 109(42):17028–17033. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.1212247109.
2. Hames I. Peer review at the beginning of the 21st century. Science Editing. 2014 feb; 1(1):4–8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.6087%2Fkcse.2014.1.4.
3. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney FS, Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Apr;p. MR000016.
4. Kravitz RL, Franks P, Feldman MD, Gerrity M, Byrne C, Tierney WM. Editorial Peer Reviewers’ Recommendations at a General Medical Journal: Are They Reliable and Do Editors Care? PLoS ONE. 2010 apr; 5(4):e10072. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0010072. PMID: 20386704
5. Schroter S. Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2004 mar; 328(7441):673–0. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1136%2Fbmj.38023.700775.ae. PMID: 14996698
6. Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Godlee F, Osorio L, Smith R. What errors do peer reviewers detect and does training improve their ability to detect them? JRSM. 2008 oct; 101(10):507{514. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1258%2Fjrsm.2008.080062.
7. Armstrong JS. Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control fairness, and innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics. 1997 mar; 3(1):63–84. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11948-9970017-3.
8. Benos DJ, Bashari E, Chaves JM, Gaggar A, Kapoor N, LaFrance M, et al. The ups and downs of peer review. AJP: Advances in Physiology Education. 2007 jun; 31(2):145–152. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1152%2Fadvan.00104.2006.
9. Ware M. Peer review: benefits, perceptions and alternatives. Publishing Research Consortium; 2008. Available from: http://publishingresearchconsortium.com/index.php/prc-documents/prc-researchprojects/35-prc-summary-4-ware-final-1/file.
10. Kriegeskorte N. Open Evaluation: A Vision for Entirely Transparent Post-Publication Peer Review and Rating for Science. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience. 2012; 6. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3389%2Ffncom.2012.00079.
11. Mahoney MJ. Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 1977 jun; 1(2):161–175. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fbf01173636.
12. Smith R. Opening up BMJ peer review. BMJ. 1999 jan; 318(7175):4–5. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1136%2Fbmj.318.7175.4. PMID: 9872861
13. Jubb M. Peer review: The current landscape and future trends. Learned Publishing. 2016 jan; 29(1):13–21. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fleap.1008.
14. Walker R, Rocha da Silva P. Emerging trends in peer review-a survey. Frontiers in Neuroscience. 2015 9(169). Available from:https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2015.00169.
15. Tennant JP, Dugan JM, Graziotin D, et al.: A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review [version 1; referees: 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research. 2017 6 (1151). Available from:https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12037.1.
16. Ross-Hellauer T. What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research. 2017 apr; 6:588. Available from: https://doi.org/10.12688%2Ff1000research.11369.1. PMID: 28580134
17. Robertson P. Towards open refereeing. New Scientist. 1976; 71:410.
18. Peters DP, Ceci SJ. Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1982 jun; 5(2):187–195. Available from:https://doi.org/10. 1017/S0140525X00011183
19. Armstrong JS. Barriers to Scientific Contributions: The Author’s Formula. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1982; 5(2):197.
20. vanRooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers’ recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ. 1999 jan; 318(7175):23–27. Available from:https://doi.org/10.1136%2Fbmj.318.7175.23. PMID: 9872878
21. Amsen E. What is open peer review?; 2014 [cited 29 April 2017]. In Discussions–F1000 Research. [Internet]. Available from:http://blog.f1000research.com/2014/05/21/what-is-open-peer-review/.
22. Ware M. Peer Review Survey 2015. Publishing Research Consortium; 2016. Available from:http:// publishingresearchconsortium.com/index.php/prc-projects/peer-review-survey-2015.
23. Mulligan A, Hall L, Raphael E. Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2013 jan; 64(1):132–161. Available from:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.22798/abstract.
24. Taylor & Francis Group. Peer review—A global view: Author Services Motivations, training and support in peer review. 2016; Available from:http://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/peer-review-global-view/.
25. Warne V. Rewarding reviewers—sense or sensibility? A Wiley study explained. Learned Publishing. 2016 jan; 29(1):41–50. Available from:https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fleap.1002.
26. Ware M. Peer Review in Scholarly Journals: Perspective of the Scholarly Community—Results from an International Study. InfServ Use. 2008 apr; 28(2):109–112. Available from:http://dl.acm.org/citation. cfm?id=1454388.1454399.
27. Mehmani B. Is open peer review the way forward?; 2016 [cited 29 April 2017]. In Elsevier: Reviewers’ Update [Internet]. Available from:https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers-update/story/innovation-in-publishing/is-open-peer-review-the-way-forward.
28. Nicholson J, Alperin JP. A brief survey on peer review in scholarly communication. The Winnower. 2016; Available from:https://thewinnower.com/papers/4659-a-brief-survey-on-peer-review-in-scholarly-communication.
29. Deppe A, Hermans E, Ross-Hellauer T. Open Peer Review—Models, Benefits and Limitations / Workshop Report 2016; 2016. Available from:https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.61378.
30. Robinson D, Silge J. tidytext. R library. Version 0.1.2 [software]. 2016. Available from: https://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/tidytext/
31. Nielsen FÅ. AFINN. Version AFINN-111 [software]. 2011. Available from: http://www2.imm.dtu.dk/pubdb/views/publication_details.php?id=6010
32. McNutt RA. The Effects of Blinding on the Quality of Peer Review. JAMA. 1990 mar; 263(10):1371. Available from:https://doi.org/10.1001%2Fjama.1990.03440100079012. PMID: 2304216
33. vanRooyen S, Delamothe T, Evans SJW. Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomized controlled trial. BMJ. 2010 nov; 341(nov16 2):c5729–c5729. Available from:https://doi.org/10.1136%2Fbmj.c5729 PMID: 21081600