



open peer review peer review scholarly communication literature review paper
 Short Description

Changes in scholarly publishing have resulted in a move toward openness. To this end, new, open models of peer review are emerging. While the scholarly literature has examined and discussed open peer review, no established definition of it exists, nor are there uniform implementations of open peer review processes. This article examines the literature discussing open peer review, identifies common open peer review definitions, and describes eight common characteristics of open peer review: signed review, disclosed review, editor-mediated review, transparent review, crowdsourced review, prepublication review, synchronous review, and post-publication review. This article further discusses benefits and challenges to the scholarly publishing community posed by open peer review, and concludes that open peer review can and should exist within the current scholarly publishing paradigm.

open peer review peer review impact report
 Short Description

Several market research studies have evaluated peer review in recent years. A goal of the present research, commissioned by PRE, is to extend those findings to provide insight into the indicators of quality of peer review. In January, 2016 Wicherts proposed that transparency of the peer review process may be seen as an indicator of the quality of peer review. By testing a questionnaire tool with several audiences with different methods, he concludes that the tool has promising reliability and validity in assessing transparency of the peer-review process as an indicator of peer-review quality. In this market research, we ask respondents to rate the helpfulness of several criteria based in part on Wicherts’ 14-item tool which rates the transparency of a journal’s peer review process, regardless of peer review model, open or blinded, pre-publication or post-publication. 

open peer review peer review report
Authors/Initiative

Council of Science Editors

Short Description

Peer review is the principal mechanism by which the quality of research is judged. Most funding decisions in science and the academic advancement of scientists are based on peer-reviewed publications. Because the number of scientific articles published each year continues to grow, the quality of the peer-review process and the quality of the editorial board are cited as primary influences on a journal’s reputation, impact factor, and standing in the field. Scientific journals publishing peer-reviewed articles depend heavily on the scientific referees or reviewers who typically volunteer their time and expertise. In most circumstances, at least 2 reviewers are solicited to evaluate a manuscript; some journals request 3 reviews. This may be required in situations where review by a statistician is needed. In cases of controversy or strong disagreement regarding the merits of the work, an additional review may also be solicited or one of the journal’s editors might give an evaluation. More than 3 reviewers are sometimes used if reviewers from several fields are needed to obtain a thorough evaluation of a paper. In addition to fairness in judgment and expertise in the field, peer reviewers have significant responsibilities toward authors, editors, and readers.

Link

 http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/white-paper-on-publication-ethics/2-3-reviewer-roles-and-responsibilities/

open peer review peer review scholarly communication open access report
Authors/Initiatives

Diane Harley, Sophia Krzys Acord, Sarah Earl-Novell, Shannon Lawrence, C. Judson King

Copyright:  Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkley

Short Description

Since 2005, the Center for Studies in Higher Education (CSHE), has been conducting research to understand the needs and practices of faculty for in-progress scholarly communication (i.e., forms of communication employed as research is being executed) as well as archival publication. This report brings together the responses of 160 interviewees across 45, mostly elite, research institutions in seven selected academic fields: archaeology, astrophysics, biology, economics, history, music, and political science. The overview document summarizes the main practices explored across all seven disciplines: tenure and promotion, dissemination, sharing, collaboration, resource creation and consumption, and public engagement. In this report, readers can search various topics within and across case studies. The report identifies five key topics, addressed in detail in the case studies, that require real attention:

peer review metrics report
Authors/Initiative

British Academy

Short Description

Peer review is the practice by which the worth of research is evaluated by those with demonstrated competence to make a judgment. It is the traditional means by which research quality is guaranteed in academic studies. The British Academy was concerned that the role peer review plays in underpinning the success of the UK research enterprise in the humanities and social sciences needed to be better understood by policy-makers.

Link

http://www.britac.ac.uk/sites/default/files/23-weale.pdf

Unless otherwise indicated, content hosted on OpenUP Hub is licensed under an Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
https://www.openuphub.eu/review/must-reads2
www.openuphub.eu
crawl=CC-MAIN-2021-31
56532
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:SGSQXSIGFFGL6RVZ2TDQXEDHUVQEB4WN
<urn:uuid:39909c5f-3532-4657-bd07-42ab65f7aaa2>
2021-07-30T22:14:19Z
88.197.53.125
text/html
sha1:FCI7IZHFYTQDVJNOZGOIVMVQCZSCTKKZ
<urn:uuid:77503017-feaf-4895-8f80-ed099ca71a49>
https://www.openuphub.eu/review/must-reads2
response
<urn:uuid:80ab965b-c0ba-41cb-ac34-2511e636a681>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2021-31
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for July/August 2021
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-216.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/