Open peer review: The current landscape and emerging models

17th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, ISSI 2019 - Proceedings

Volumn 1, Issue , 2019, Pages 387-398

  Wolfram, Dietmar ^a   Wang, Peiling ^b   Park, Hyoungjoo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

IMPLEMENTATION MODELS; OPEN SCIENCE; PEER REVIEW; SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATION;

TRANSPARENCY;

EID: 85076907377     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (28)

1. Barbash, F. (2014). Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles, smashes ‘peer review ring’, The Washington Post, July 10, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/10/scholarlyjournal-retracts-60-articles-smashes-peer-review-ring/?utm_term=.4ab26f14adb9
2. 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
3. Bohannon, J. (2013). Who’s afraid of peer review? A spoof paper concocted by Science reveals little or no scrutiny at many open-access journals. Science, 342, 60–65. https://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full.pdf
4. 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 DOI 10.1007/s11192-011-0569-5
5. Eve, M. P. (2017). Open access publishing models and how OA can work in the humanities. Bulletin of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 43(5), 16-20.
6. Ford, E. (2013). Defining and Characterizing Open Peer Review: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 44(4), 311-326.
7. Fresco-Santalla, A. & Hernández-Pérez, T. (2014). Current and evolving models of peer review. The Serials Librarian, 67:4, 373-398. doi: 10.1080/0361526X.2014.985415
8. Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, C., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64 (1), 2-17
9. Gross, J, & Ryan, J. C. (2015) Landscapes of research: perceptions of open access (OA) publishing in the arts and humanities. Publications, 3, 65-88.
10. Godlee, F., Gale, C. R., & Martyn C. N. (1998). Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA, 280, 237–40
11. Görögh, E., Schmidt, B., Banelytė, V., Stanciauskas, V., & Woutersen-Windhouwer, S. (2017). OpenUP Deliverable D3.1– Practices, evaluation and mapping: Methods, tools and user needs. OpenUP Project. http://openup-h2020.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/OpenUP_D3.1_Peerreview-landscape-report.pdf
12. Kriegeskorte, N. (2012). Open evaluation: a vision for entirely transparent post-publication peer review and rating for science. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6, Article 79, 2-18
13. Mehmani, B. (2016). Is open peer review the way forward? https://www.elsevier.com/reviewersupdate/story/innovation-in-publishing/is-open-peer-review-the-way-forward
14. Mehmani, B. & van Rossum, J. (2015). Elsevier trials publishing peer review reports as articles https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers-update/story/peer-review/elsevier-pilot-trials-publishing-peer-review-reports-as-articles
15. Mulligan, A., Hall, L., & Raphael, E. (2013). Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. Journal of American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64: 132–161. doi: 10.1002/asi.22798
16. Peer Review Congress (2017). Under the Microscope: Transparency in Peer Review. Panel after the Peer Review Congress. Peer Review Congress, Chicago, 10-12, September, 2017. Panel chaired by Alice Meadows (ORCID) with panellists: Irene Hames (Board member of Learned Publishing), Elizabeth Moylan (BMC), Andrew Preston (Publons), and Carly Strasser (Moore Foundation) https://peerreviewweek.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/prw2017-panelists22.pdf Video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8x1dho6HRzE
17. Pöschl, U. & Koop, T. (2008). Interactive open access publishing and collaborative peer review for improved scientific communication and quality assurance. Information Services & Use, 28, 105-7
18. Rath, M. & Wang, P. (2017). Open peer review in the era of open science: A pilot study of researchers’ perceptions (Poster Paper) In Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL), 317-8
19. Ross-Hellauer T. (2017). 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
20. Ross-Hellauer, T., Deppe, A., & Schmidt, B. (2017). Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers. PLoS ONE, 12(12), e0189311 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189311
21. Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99, 178-182
22. Tattersall, T. (2015). For what it’s worth – the open peer review landscape, Online Information Review, 39(5), 649-663, https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-06-2015-0182
23. Tennant, J. P., Dugan J. M., Graziotin D., Jacques, D. C., Waldner, F., Mietchen, D., … Colomb, J. (2017). A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review. F1000Research 2017, 6:1151 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12037.3
24. 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. BMJ, 318, 23–7.
25. Vrana, R. (2017). Acceptance of Open Peer Review by Scientific Publishers. The 28th International Central European Conference on Information and Intelligent Systems, September 27-29, Varazdin, Croatia. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322919350_Acceptance_of_Open_Peer_Review_by_Scie ntific_Publishers
26. Wang, P. & Tahamtan, I. (2017). The State-of-the-Art of Open Peer Review: Early Adopters. (Poster Paper) Proceedings of the 2017 Annual Meeting of The Association for Information Science & Technology, October 27 – November 1, Washington DC.
27. Wang, P. & Wolfram, D. (2016). The Last Frontier in Open Science: Will Open Peer Review Transform Scientific and Scholarly Publishing? at the 2016 Annual Meeting of the Association for Information Science and Technology Oct. 14-18, 2016, Copenhagen, Denmark. [Panellists: Jason Hoyt, PeerJ; Ulrich Pöschl, Max Planck; Peter Ingwersen, Royal School of Denmark & Richard Smith, retired editor of The BMJ; discussant: Marcia Bates, University of California, Log Angeles]
28. 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), 60 – 80. https://content.sciendo.com/view/journals/jdis/1/4/article-p60.xml