The state-of-the-art of open peer review: Early adopters

Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 54, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 819-820

  Wang, Peiling ^a   Tahamtan, Iman ^a  

^a Health Science Center   (United States)

Author keywords

open access; open peer review; peer review; post publication peer review; scientific publishing

Indexed keywords

REVIEWS;

OPEN PEER REVIEW; OPEN REVIEW; OPENACCESS; PEER REVIEW; PEER-REVIEW PROCESS; POST-PUBLICATION PEER REVIEW; SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHING; STATE OF THE ART;

TRANSPARENCY;

EID: 85040790811     PISSN: None     EISSN: 23739231     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pra2.2017.14505401170     Document Type: Article

References (6)

1. Belluz, J., Plumer, B., & Resnick, B. (2016). The 7 biggest problems facing science, according to 270 scientists. Vox http://www.vox.com/2016/7/14/12016710/science-challeges-research-funding-peer-review-process
2. Ford, E. (2013). Defining and characterizing open peer review: A review of the literature. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 44 (4), 311–326.
3. 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, 33.
4. Soergel, D., Adam, S., & Andrew, M. (2013). Open scholarship and peer review: A time for experimentation. The Proceedings of the 30th international conference on machine learning, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
5. Wang, P., Rath, M., Deike, M., & Wu, Q. (2016). Open peer review: An innovation in scientific publishing. Runner up of the Most Interesting Preliminary Results Paper The iConference 2016 (Philadelphia, PA, March 20–23). https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/89432/Wang315.pdf
6. Wang, P., You, S., Rath, M., & Wolfram, D. (2016). Open peer review in scientific publishing: A web mining study of PeerJ authors and reviewers. Journal of Data and Information Science, 1 (;4).