Open peer review: Another step towards open science by scientific journals
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3145/thinkepi.2020.e14e02Keywords:
Open peer review, Open science, Scientific journal, Case study, MDPI, SciELO, BioMed Central, PeerJ.Abstract
The opportunities of the application of open peer review to journals are analyzed. We discuss the characteristics and types of open peer review, the pros and cons of applying this model to journals, and the opinion of the main agents in the process (authors, reviewers, and editors). Finally, some good practice experiences that serve to complement the theoretical framework are presented.
References
Bernal, Isabel; Román-Molina, Juan (2018). Informe de la encuesta sobre la evaluación por pares y el módulo "˜open peer review´ del repositorio Digital-CSIC. http://hdl.handle.net/10261/167425
BMJ (2020). "Open peer review". BMJ. https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/publishing-model
Burley, Rachel (2017). "Lessons learned from open peer review: A publisher´s perspective". SpringBoard blog, 23 December. https://www.springernature.com/gp/advancing-discovery/blog/blogposts/lessons-learned-from-open-peer-review--a-publisher-s-perspective/16123780
DeCoursey, Thomas (2006). "Perspective: The pros and cons of open peer review". Nature blogs: Peer-to-Peer. Peer review blog, 14 June. http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2006/06/perspective_the_pros_and_cons.html
Garcia, Joana C. R.; Targino, Maria-das-Graí§as (2017) "Open peer review sob a ótica de editores das revistas brasileiras da ciíªncia da informaí§í£o". Em: XVIII Encontro Nacional de Pesquisa em Ciíªncia da Informaí§í£o, Enancib. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11959/brapci/104007
Groves, Trish (2010). "Is open peer review the fairest system? Yes". BMJ, n. 341, c6424. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c6424
Groves, Trish; Loder, Elizabeth (2014). "Prepublication histories and open peer review at The BMJ". BMJ, n. 349, g5394. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g5394
Hopewell, Sally; Collins, Gary S.; Boutron, Isabelle; Yu, Ly-Mee; Cook, Jonathan; Shanyinde, Milensu; Wharton, Rose; Shamseer, Larissa; Altman, Douglas G. (2014). "Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: Retrospective before and after study". BMJ, n. 349, g4145. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g4145
Khan, Karim (2010). "Is open peer review the fairest system? No", BMJ, n. 341, c6425. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c6425
Mendoní§a, A. (2020). "Pesquisa avaliaí§í£o por pares aberta". [Correo electrónico].
PeerJ (2014). "Who´s afraid of open peer review?" PeerJblog, 23 May. https://peerj.com/blog/post/100580518238/whos-afraid-of-open-peer-review
PeerJ (2020). PeerJ = Open. Transparency, trust, and quality. https://peerj.com/benefits/review-history-and-peer-review/
Publishing Research Consortium (2016). Peer review survey 2015. Mark Ware Consulting. http://publishingresearchconsortium.com/index.php/prc-documents/prc-research-projects/57-prc-peer-review-survey-2015
Rittman, Martyn (2018). "Opening up peer review". MDPI blog, 12 October. https://blog.mdpi.com/2018/10/12/opening-up-peer-review/
Ross-Hellauer, Tony (2017). "What is open peer review? A systematic review". F1000Research, n. 6, n. 588. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2
Ross-Hellauer, Tony; Deppe, Arvid; Schmidt, Birgit (2017) "Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers". PLoS one, v. 12, n. 12, e0189311. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189311
Schmidt, Birgit; Ross-Hellauer, Tony; Van-Edig, Xenia; Moylan, Elizabeth C. (2018). "Ten considerations for open peer review". F1000Research, v. 7, n. 969. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15334.1
SciELO (2018). Linhas prioritárias de aí§í£o 2019-2023. SciELO 20 Anos. https://www.scielo20.org/redescielo/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/09/Líneas-prioritaris-de-acción-2019-2023_pt.pdf
Segado-Boj, Francisco; Martín-Quevedo, Juan; Prieto-Gutiérrez, Juan-José (2017). "Percepción de las revistas científicas españolas hacia el acceso abierto, open peer review y altmetrics". Ibersid, v. 12, n. 1, pp. 27-32. https://www.ibersid.eu/ojs/index.php/ibersid/article/view/4407
Segado-Boj, Francisco; Martín-Quevedo, Juan; Prieto-Gutiérrez, Juan José (2018). "Attitudes toward open access, open peer review, and altmetrics among contributors to Spanish scholarly journals". Journal of scholarly publishing, v. 50, n. 1, p. 48-70. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/707432
Seppí¤nen, Janne-Tuomas (2016). "Peerage of science: the inspiration, aims and future developments". BMC: Blog Network. https://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2016/06/16/peerage-science-inspiration-aims-future-developments/
Spinak, Ernesto (2018). "Sobre las veintidós definiciones de la revisión abierta por pares"¦ y más". SciELO en perspectiva, 28 febrero. http://blog.scielo.org/es/2018/02/28/sobre-las-veintidos-definiciones-de-la-revision-abierta-por-pares-y-mas/
Targino, Maria-das-Graí§as; Garcia, Joana C. R.; Da-Silva, Kleisson L. N. (2019). "Evaluadores del área de la ciíªncia de la información frente al open peer review". Revista interamericana de bibliotecología, v. 43, n. 1. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.rib.v43n1eI3
Taylor & Francis (2015). Peer review in 2015: a global view. https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/peer-review-global-view
Transpose (2020). TRANsparency in scholarly publishing for open scholarship evolution. https://transpose-publishing.github.io/#/
Wang, Peiling; You, Sukjin; Manasa, Rath; Wolfram, Dietmar (2017). "Open peer review in scientific publishing: A web mining study of PeerJ authors and reviewers". Journal of data and information science, v. 1, n. 4, pp. 60-80. https://doi.org/10.20309/jdis.201625
