Dynamic patterns of open review process

Author(s):  
Zhi-Dan Zhao ◽  
Jiahao Chen ◽  
Yichuan Lu ◽  
Na Zhao ◽  
Dazhi Jiang ◽  
...  
2018 ◽  
Vol 196 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-102
Author(s):  
Andy Inch

This reflection discusses my response to William Walton's research paper in this issue of the journal. In it I explore how a timely invitation to take part in the open review process prompted thoughts about my ongoing involvement in the politics of planning in Scotland. Drawing on experience of campaigning for a fair and inclusive planning system, I briefly reflect on why the post-political has proven such an attractive theoretical lens for recent attempts to understand urban planning under neoliberalism. Suggesting that it seems to capture something important about ongoing attempts to reshape planning ideas and practices in Scotland, I go on to consider how Walton’s paper brings to light important concerns about the loss of democratic accountability. Overall, I try to explore how the repression of energies required to sustain a post-political settlement may nonetheless provide a resource for acting in and against the dominance of market rationalities.


Author(s):  
Lonni Besançon ◽  
Niklas Rönnberg ◽  
Jonas Löwgren ◽  
Jonathan P. Tennant ◽  
Matthew Cooper

We present a discussion and analysis regarding the benefits and limitations of open and non-anonymized peer review based on literature results and responses to a survey on the reviewing process of alt.chi, a more or less open-review track within the CHI conference, the predominant conference in the field of human-computer interaction (HCI). This track currently is the only implementation of an open-peer-review process in the field of HCI while, with the recent increase in interest in open science practices, open review is now being considered and used in other fields. We collected 30 responses from alt.chi authors and reviewers and found that, while the benefits are quite clear and the system is generally well liked by alt.chi participants, they are reluctant to see it used in other venues. This concurs with a number of recent studies that suggest a divergence between support for a more open review process and its practical implementation. The data and scripts are available on https://osf.io/vuw7h/, and the figures and follow-up work on http://tiny.cc/OpenReviews.


2013 ◽  
Vol 44 (5) ◽  
pp. 738-741
Author(s):  
Joshua T. Hertel ◽  
Tami S. Martin

The November 2013 issue of JRME marks the end to the 44th volume. Looking back on the history of the journal, many things have changed since the first issue was published in January 1970. In particular, the process through which manuscripts are submitted, reviewed, and published has changed greatly. Gone are the days of mailed manuscripts and reviews. As the journal has matured with the field of mathematics education, the standards and expectations for both manuscripts and reviews have also evolved. These standards and expectations are to a great extent influenced by the peer-review process and are thereby linked to the practice of blinding. When submitting a manuscript to JRME, authors must submit both a blinded and an unblinded version. The blinded version is sent to reviewers, and the unblinded version is used by the editorial staff. Although other journals use a single-blind process (reviewers are aware of the identities of the authors) or an open review process (both parties are aware of the others' identities), the JRME review process remains a double-blind process in which neither authors nor reviewers are aware of the others' identities.


Author(s):  
Lonni Besançon ◽  
Niklas Rönnberg ◽  
Jonas Löwgren ◽  
Jonathan P. Tennant ◽  
Matthew Cooper

Abstract Background Our aim is to highlight the benefits and limitations of open and non-anonymized peer review. Our argument is based on the literature and on responses to a survey on the reviewing process of alt.chi, a more or less open review track within the so-called Computer Human Interaction (CHI) conference, the predominant conference in the field of human-computer interaction. This track currently is the only implementation of an open peer review process in the field of human-computer interaction while, with the recent increase in interest in open scientific practices, open review is now being considered and used in other fields. Methods We ran an online survey with 30 responses from alt.chi authors and reviewers, collecting quantitative data using multiple-choice questions and Likert scales. Qualitative data were collected using open questions. Results Our main quantitative result is that respondents are more positive to open and non-anonymous reviewing for alt.chi than for other parts of the CHI conference. The qualitative data specifically highlight the benefits of open and transparent academic discussions. The data and scripts are available on https://osf.io/vuw7h/, and the figures and follow-up work on http://tiny.cc/OpenReviews. Conclusion While the benefits are quite clear and the system is generally well-liked by alt.chi participants, they remain reluctant to see it used in other venues. This concurs with a number of recent studies that suggest a divergence between support for a more open review process and its practical implementation.


2001 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. 521-527 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Melero ◽  
F. López-Santoveña

A survey was mailed to 293 referees from the review board of Food Science and Technology International with the following personal characteristics: ages: 35–45 (35%), 45–55 (37%), and 55–65 (27%); 93% PhD graduates; 69% male, 98% researchers, 82% teachers too, 85% review for other journals as well to assess reviewers’ attitudes or preferences in favor of or against masking their identity, and toward the electronic transmission of papers for review. The reviewers were mainly from Europe, North America, and South America. The questionnaire was anonymous and asked if respondents were in favor of an open review or masking of the reviewers, and if they agreed with the electronic transmission of the papers for their review (both from the point of view of author and reviewer). The response rate was 35% (103 respondents). The consistency between the answers as being authors or reviewers when asked by the peer review process was significant ( P<0.001) without significant differences in terms of gender or age. Seventy-five percent were in favor of masking reviewers, and 17% completely favored unblinded review. The consistency between the answers for paper transmission was significant ( P<0.001) without significant differences in terms of gender or age. Seventy-five percent were in favor of electronic transmission, 25% were against it. There was a significant association between the answers in favor of or against e-transmission and the age either as reviewers ( P=0.009) or as authors ( P= 0.031). The other associations between the system of review and gender or age were not significant. There was a preference among the participants for masking the reviewers, and a tendency to use the Web as the transmission medium because it is considered faster, easier, simpler, and more economic.


2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 330-338
Author(s):  
Donald F. Sacco ◽  
Samuel V. Bruton ◽  
Mitch Brown ◽  
Mary M. Medlin

Two preregistered studies explored the likelihood paper reviewers would request clarification from authors regarding potential questionable research practices (QRPs). Study 1 participants were instructed to imagine reviewing a journal manuscript as either a coauthor or peer reviewer and rate the extent to which they would request clarification from the author when encountering potential QRPs. Participants reported greater likelihood of requesting clarification when assigned to the coauthor relative to the peer reviewer role. Study 2 participants were assigned to either an anonymous or open-review condition and rated the extent to which they would seek clarification from an author regarding potential QRPs. Men (but not women) in the open review condition reported greater likelihood of seeking clarification about potential QRPs than men in the blind review condition. Results provide tentative evidence that motivational factors influence the peer review process, and suggestions are made for improving peer review practices.


Author(s):  
Lonni Besançon ◽  
Niklas Rönnberg ◽  
Jonas Löwgren ◽  
Jonathan Tennant ◽  
Matthew Cooper

We present a discussion and analysis regarding the benefits and limitations of open and non-anonymized peer review based on literature results and responses to a survey on the reviewing process of alt.chi, a more or less open-review track within the CHI conference, the predominant conference in the field of human-computer interaction (HCI). This track currently is the only implementation of an open-peer-review process in the field of HCI while, with the recent increase in interest in open science practices, open review is now being considered and used in other fields. We collected 30 responses from alt.chi authors and reviewers and found that, while the benefits are quite clear and the system is generally well liked by alt.chi participants, they are reluctant to see it used in other venues. This concurs with a number of recent studies that suggest a divergence between support for a more open review process and its practical implementation. The data and scripts are available on https://osf.io/vuw7h/, and the figures and follow-up work on http://tiny.cc/OpenReviews.


1986 ◽  
Vol 50 (12) ◽  
pp. 726-727
Author(s):  
RS Mackenzie ◽  
RE Martin
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document