Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science

Scientometrics

Volumn 125, Issue 2, 2020, Pages 1033-1051

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

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

Author keywords

C80; Journal editorial policies; Open access; Open peer review; Peer review transparency; Scholarly communication; Transparent review models

Indexed keywords

EID: 85085292053     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: 15882861     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03488-4     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Agha, R. (2017). Publishing peer review reports. Webinar: Transparency in Peer Review. https://researcheracademy.elsevier.com/navigating-peer-review/fundamentals-peer-review/transparency-peer-review.
2. ASAPbio (2018). Transparency, recognition, and innovation in peer review in the life sciences (February 2018)/Peer review survey results. https://asapbio.org/peer-review/survey.
3. 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/scholarly-journal-retracts-60-articles-smashes-peer-review-ring/?utm_term=.4ab26f14adb9.
4. Belluz, J., Plumer, B., & Resnick, B. (2016). The 7 biggest problems facing science, according to 270 scientists. Vox. https://www.vox.com/2016/7/14/12016710/science-challeges-research-funding-peer-review-process.
5. 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.
6. 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. 10.1007/s11192-011-0569-5. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-011-0569-5
7. Bravo, G., Grimaldo, F., López-Iñesta, E., Mehmani, B., & Squazzoni, F. (2019). The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals. Natural Communication, 10, 322. 10.1038/s41467-018-08250-2. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-08250-2
8. Clobridge, A. (2016). Open peer review: the next wave in open knowledge? Online Searcher: Information Discovery, Technology, Strategies, 40(4), 60–62.
9. 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. 10.1002/bul2.2017.1720430505. DOI: 10.1002/bul2.2017.1720430505
10. EMBO Press. (2020). Transparent Peer Review. https://www.embopress.org/policies.
11. Fennell, C., Corney, A., & Ash E. (2017). Transparency—the key to trust in peer review, Elsevier Connect, https://www.elsevier.com/connect/transparency-the-key-to-trust-in-peer-review.
12. Ford, E. (2013). Defining and characterizing open peer review: A review of the literature. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 44(4), 311–326. 10.3138/jsp.44-4-001. DOI: 10.3138/jsp.44-4-001
13. Fresco-Santalla, A., & Hernández-Pérez, T. (2014). Current and evolving models of peer review. The Serials Librarian, 67(4), 373–398. 10.1080/0361526X.2014.985415. DOI: 10.1080/0361526X.2014.985415
14. Graf, C. (2019) Why more journals are joining our transparent peer review pilot. Director, Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics at Wiley. September 20, 2019. https://www.wiley.com/network/researchers/latest-content/why-more-journals-are-joining-our-transparent-peer-review-pilot.
15. Gross, J., & Ryan, J. C. (2015). Landscapes of research: perceptions of open access (OA) publishing in the arts and humanities. Publications, 3, 65–88. 10.3390/publications3020065. DOI: 10.3390/publications3020065
16. 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, 237–240. DOI: 10.1001/jama.280.3.237
17. Görögh, E., Schmidt, B., Banelytė, V., Stanciauskas, V., & Woutersen-Windhouwer, S. (2019). OpenUP Deliverable D3.1—Practices, evaluation and mapping: Methods, tools and user needs. OpenUP Project. 10.5281/zenodo.2557272.
18. Haven, T., Tijdink, J., Pasman, H. R., et al. (2019). Researchers’ perceptions of research misbehaviours: a mixed methods study among academic researchers in Amsterdam. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 4(1), 25. 10.1186/s41073-019-0081-7. DOI: 10.1186/s41073-019-0081-7
19. Kriegeskorte, N. (2012). Open evaluation: a vision for entirely transparent post-publication peer review and rating for science. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6(79), 2–18. 10.3389/fncom.2012.00079. DOI: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00079
20. Lawrence, R. (2015). Preventing peer review fraud: F1000Research, the F1000 Faculty and the crowd. https://blog.f1000.com/2015/04/09/preventing-peer-review-fraud-f1000research-the-f1000-faculty-and-the-crowd/.
21. 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. 10.1002/asi.22784. DOI: 10.1002/asi.22784
22. Malone, R. E. (1999). Should peer review be an open process? Journal of Emergency Nursing, 25(2), 150–152. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-1767(99)70163-7
23. Mehmani, B. (2016). Is open peer review the way forward? https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers-update/story/innovation-in-publishing/is-open-peer-review-the-way-forward.
24. 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.
25. Moylan, E. (2019). How do researchers feel about open peer review? Wiley. September 17, 2019. https://www.wiley.com/network/researchers/submission-and-navigating-peer-review/how-do-researchers-feel-about-open-peer-review.
26. Moylan, E. (2020). Progressing towards transparency—more journals join our transparent peer review pilot. Wiley. March 5, 2020. https://www.wiley.com/network/researchers/submission-and-navigating-peer-review/progressing-towards-transparency-more-journals-join-our-transparent-peer-review-pilot.
27. 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. 10.1002/asi.22798. DOI: 10.1002/asi.22798
28. Naik, G. (2011). Mistakes in scientific studies surge. The Wall Street Journal, 10 August 2011.
29. Nature (2015). Transparent peer review at Nature Communications. Nature Communication, 6, 10.1038/ncomms10277.
30. Nature (2016). Transparent peer review one year on. Nature Communication, 7, 10.1038/ncomms13626.
31. Nature (2020). Nature will publish peer review reports as a trial, Editorial 05 February 2020. Nature, 578. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00309-9.
32. Opening up peer review. (2007). Nature Cell Biology, 9, 1. 10.1038/ncb0107-1. DOI: 10.1038/ncb0107-1
33. 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.
34. Peer Review Week. (2017). Transparency In Review is focus for Peer Review Week 2017. https://peerreviewweek.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/prw_2017-_press_release-5-sept.pdf.
35. Pöschl, U., & Koop, T. (2008). Interactive open access publishing and collaborative peer review for improved scientific communication and quality assurance. Information Services & Use, 28, 105–107. 10.3233/ISU-2008-0567. DOI: 10.3233/ISU-2008-0567
36. Rath, M. & Wang, P. (2017). Open peer review in the era of open science: A pilot study of researchers’ perceptions (Poster) In Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL), 317–318.
37. Rittman, M. (2018) Opening up Peer Review. https://blog.mdpi.com/2018/10/12/opening-up-peer-review/.
38. Ross-Hellauer, T. (2017). What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research. 2017 apr; 6:588. Available from: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.1. PMID: 28580134
39. 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. 10.1371/journal.pone.0189311. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189311
40. Rupp, M., Anastasopoulou, L., Wintermeyer, E., Malhaan, D., Khassawna, T. E., & Heiss, C. (2019). Predatory journals: A major threat in orthopaedic research. International Orthopaedics, 43, 509–517. 10.1007/s00264-018-4179-1. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-018-4179-1
41. 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. 10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178. DOI: 10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178
42. Tattersall, T. (2015). For what it’s worth—the open peer review landscape. Online Information Review, 39(5), 649–663. 10.1108/OIR-06-2015-0182. DOI: 10.1108/OIR-06-2015-0182
43. 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, 10.12688/f1000research.12037.3.
44. 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, 23–27. 10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23
45. Wang, P., Rath, P., Deike, D., & Wu, Q. (2016a). Open peer review: An innovation in scientific publishing. 2016 iConference. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/158312603.pdf.
46. Wang, P., You, S., Rath, M., & Wolfram, D. (2016b). Open peer review in scientific publishing: A web mining study of peerj authors and reviewer. Journal of Data and Information Science, 1(4), 60–80. https://content.sciendo.com/view/journals/jdis/1/4/article-p60.xml.
47. 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.
48. 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, October 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].
49. Walsh, E., Rooney, M., Appleby, L., & Wilkinson, G. (2000). Open peer review: A randomised controlled trial. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 176, 47–51. 10.1192/bjp.176.1.47. DOI: 10.1192/bjp.176.1.47
50. Wiley (2018). Bringing greater transparency to peer review: Wiley and Clarivate analytics partner to launch innovative open peer review, 13 September 2018, https://newsroom.wiley.com/press-release/bringing-greater-transparency-peer-review-wiley-and-clarivate-analytics-partner-launch.
51. Wiley (2020). A list of participating OPR journals is referred at https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/what-is-peer-review/index.html (direct link: https://authorservices.wiley.com/asset/photos/reviewers.html/Journals%20Included%20in%20Transparent%20Peer%20Review%20Pilot.xlsx).
52. Wolfram, D., Wang, P., & Park, H. (2019). Open Peer Review: The current landscape and emerging models. Proceedings of the 17th International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference. (pp. 387–398).