scholarly journals Open Peer Review in Scientific Publishing: A Web Mining Study of PeerJ Authors and Reviewers

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 60-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peiling Wang ◽  
Sukjin You ◽  
Rath Manasa ◽  
Dietmar Wolfram
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Web Mining ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Open Access Journal ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Current Characteristics ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
Analytical Tools

AbstractPurposeTo understand how authors and reviewers are accepting and embracing Open Peer Review (OPR), one of the newest innovations in the Open Science movement.Design/methodology/approachThis research collected and analyzed data from the Open Access journal PeerJ over its first three years (2013–2016). Web data were scraped, cleaned, and structured using several Web tools and programs. The structured data were imported into a relational database. Data analyses were conducted using analytical tools as well as programs developed by the researchers.FindingsPeerJ, which supports optional OPR, has a broad international representation of authors and referees. Approximately 73.89% of articles provide full review histories. Of the articles with published review histories, 17.61% had identities of all reviewers and 52.57% had at least one signed reviewer. In total, 43.23% of all reviews were signed. The observed proportions of signed reviews have been relatively stable over the period since the Journal’s inception.Research limitationsThis research is constrained by the availability of the peer review history data. Some peer reviews were not available when the authors opted out of publishing their review histories. The anonymity of reviewers made it impossible to give an accurate count of reviewers who contributed to the review process.Practical implicationsThese findings shed light on the current characteristics of OPR. Given the policy that authors are encouraged to make their articles’ review history public and referees are encouraged to sign their review reports, the three years of PeerJ review data demonstrate that there is still some reluctance by authors to make their reviews public and by reviewers to identify themselves.Originality/valueThis is the first study to closely examine PeerJ as an example of an OPR model journal. As Open Science moves further towards open research, OPR is a final and critical component. Research in this area must identify the best policies and paths towards a transparent and open peer review process for scientific communication.

scholarly journals Reforming Science Publishing

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Khaled Moustafa
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Publishing Industry ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Open Access Journal ◽  
The Past ◽  
Open Access Journals

Over the past few years, different changes have been introduced into the science publishing industry. However, important reforms are still required at both the content and form levels. First, the peer review process needs to be open, fair and transparent. Second, author-paid fees in open access journals need to either be removed or reconsidered toward more affordability. Third, the categorization of papers should include all types of scientific contributions that can be of higher interest to the scientific community than many mere quantitative and observable measures, or simply removed from publications. Forth, word counts and reference numbers in online open access journal should be nuanced or replaced by recommended ranges rather than to be a proxy of acceptance or rejection. Finally, all the coauthors of a manuscript should be considered corresponding authors and responsible for their mutual manuscript rather than only one or two.

scholarly journals Peering into peer review: Good quality reviews of research articles require neither writing too much nor taking too long

2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula CABEZAS Del FIERRO ◽  
Omar SABAJ MERUANE ◽  
Germán VARAS ESPINOZA ◽  
Valeria GONZÁLEZ HERRERA
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Average Length ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Review Time ◽  
Feedback Quality ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract The value of scientific knowledge is highly dependent on the quality of the process used to produce it, namely, the quality of the peer-review process. This process is a pivotal part of science as it works both to legitimize and improve the work of the scientific community. In this context, the present study investigated the relationship between review time, length, and feedback quality of review reports in the peer-review process of research articles. For this purpose, the review time of 313 referee reports from three Chilean international journals were recorded. Feedback quality was determined estimating the rate of direct requests by the total number of comments in each report. Number of words was used to describe the average length in the sample. Results showed that average time and length have little variation across review reports, irrespective of their quality. Low quality reports tended to take longer to reach the editor, so neither time nor length were related to feedback quality. This suggests that referees mostly describe, criticize, or praise the content of the article instead of making useful and direct comments to help authors improve their manuscripts.

scholarly journals The role and significance of peer-review in Russian and foreign library and information science journals: a comparative analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
V.  N. Gureyev ◽  
N.  A. Mazov
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Review System ◽  
Academic Journals ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Peer Reviewers

The paper summarizes experience of the authors as peer-reviewers of more than 100 manuscripts in twelve Russian and foreign academic journals on Library and Information Science in the last seven years. Prepared peer-reviews were used for making a list of the most usual critical and special comments for each manuscript that were subsequently structured for the conducted analyzes. Typical issues accompanying the peer-review process are shown. Significant differences between the results of peer-review in Russian and foreign journals are detected: although the initial quality of newly submitted manuscripts is approximately equal, the final published versions in foreign journals addressed all critical and the majority of minor reviewers’ comments, while in Russian journals more than one third of final versions were published with critical gaps. We conclude about low interest in high quality peer reviews among both authors and editors-in-chief in Russian journals. Despite the limitations of the samples, the obtained findings can be useful when evaluating the current peer-review system in Russian academic journals on Library and Information Science.

scholarly journals Students' Peer-Review in Modelling Exercises

10.28945/2632 ◽  
2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guttorm Sindre ◽  
Daniel Moody ◽  
Terje Brasethvik ◽  
Arne Solvberg
Keyword(s):  
Information Systems ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Student Performance ◽  
Student Motivation ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Learning Experience ◽  
Teaching Staff ◽  
Peer Reviews

This paper reports on the 2002 experiences with students’ peer-review of modeling exercises in a third year Information Systems course. While the peer-reviews did yield some positive and promising results, there were also some problems, and the goals set when introducing peer reviews were not fully achieved. Based on an analysis of student performance and perceptions, main causes for the problems were found to be lacking student motivation combined with unclear demands from teaching staff. For the 2003 offering of the course, the peer review process has been changed to remedy these problems, and this seems to have improved the learning experience for the students.

scholarly journals Ensuring Quality and Status: Peer Review Practices in Kriterium, A Portal for Quality-Marked Monographs and Edited Volumes in Swedish SSH

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Björn Hammarfelt ◽  
Isak Hammar ◽  
Helena Francke
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Important Indicator ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Publication Patterns ◽  
Novel Approach

Although established forms of peer review are often criticized for being slow, secretive, and even unfair, they are repeatedly mentioned by academics as the most important indicator of quality in scholarly publishing. In many countries, the peer review of books is a less codified practice than that of journal articles or conference papers, and the processes and actors involved are far from uniform. In Sweden, the review process of books has seldom been formalized. However, more formal peer review of books has been identified as a response to the increasing importance placed on streamlined peer-reviewed publishing of journal articles in English, which has been described as a direct challenge to more pluralistic publication patterns found particularly in the humanities. In this study, we focus on a novel approach to book review, Kriterium, where an independent portal maintained by academic institutions oversees the reviewing of academic books. The portal administers peer reviews, providing a mark of quality through a process which involves reviewers, an academic coordinator, and an editorial board. The paper studies how this process functions in practice by exploring materials concerning 24 scholarly books reviewed within Kriterium. Our analysis specifically targets tensions identified in the process of reviewing books with a focus on three main themes, namely the intended audience, the edited volume, and the novel role of the academic coordinator. Moreover, we find that the two main aims of the portal–quality enhancement (making research better) and certification (displaying that research is of high quality)–are recurrent in deliberations made in the peer review process. Consequently, we argue that reviewing procedures and criteria of quality are negotiated within a broader discussion where more traditional forms of publishing are challenged by new standards and evaluation practices.

scholarly journals What is open peer review? A systematic review

F1000Research ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 588 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tony Ross-Hellauer
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Subject Area ◽  
Open Review ◽  
Broad Subject ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
The Many ◽  
Definition Of

Background: “Open peer review” (OPR), despite being a major pillar of Open Science, has neither a standardized definition nor an agreed schema of its features and implementations. The literature reflects this, with a myriad of overlapping and often contradictory definitions. While the term is used by some to refer to peer review where the identities of both author and reviewer are disclosed to each other, for others it signifies systems where reviewer reports are published alongside articles. For others it signifies both of these conditions, and for yet others it describes systems where not only “invited experts” are able to comment. For still others, it includes a variety of combinations of these and other novel methods. Methods: Recognising the absence of a consensus view on what open peer review is, this article undertakes a systematic review of definitions of “open peer review” or “open review”, to create a corpus of 122 definitions. These definitions are then systematically analysed to build a coherent typology of the many different innovations in peer review signified by the term, and hence provide the precise technical definition currently lacking. Results: This quantifiable data yields rich information on the range and extent of differing definitions over time and by broad subject area. Quantifying definitions in this way allows us to accurately portray exactly how  ambiguously the phrase “open peer review”  has been used thus far, for the literature offers a total of 22 distinct configurations of seven traits, effectively meaning that there are 22 different definitions of OPR in the literature. Conclusions: Based on this work, I propose a pragmatic definition of open peer review as an umbrella term for a number of overlapping ways that peer review models can be adapted in line with the ethos of Open Science, including making reviewer and author identities open, publishing review reports and enabling greater participation in the peer review process.

PsyArXiv

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 38-42
Author(s):  
Margie Ruppel
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Key Features ◽  
Accessibility Issues ◽  
Science Framework

PsyArXiv, an Open Access preprint service, is the only platform in North America dedicated to making psychology and psychological science papers available to scholars, students, and the general public prior to peer review. The Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science operates PsyArXiv; two governing boards provide guidance; and member institutions provide financial support. Key features include an abundance of new scholarship in all areas of psychology, an Open Access infrastructure using the Open Science Framework, and links to associated outputs, thus improving access to research and grey literature. Drawbacks include some accessibility issues and a lack of prominent notices on preprints indicating they have not gone through the peer review process.

scholarly journals A retrospective study investigating requests for self-citation during open peer review in a general medicine journal

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin Peebles ◽  
Marissa Scandlyn ◽  
Blair R. Hesp
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
General Medicine ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Exact Test ◽  
Medicine Journal ◽  
Objective Feedback ◽  
Review Reports

AbstractIntroductionPeer review is a volunteer process for improving the quality of publications by providing objective feedback to authors, but also presents an opportunity for reviewers to seek personal reward by requesting self-citations. Open peer review may reduce the prevalence of self-citation requests and encourage author rebuttal over accession. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of self-citation requests and their inclusion in manuscripts in a journal with open peer review.MethodsRequests for additional references to be included during peer review for articles published between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2018 in BMC Medicine were evaluated. Data extracted included total number of self-citations requested, self-citations that were included in the final published manuscript and manuscripts that included at least one self-citation, and compared with corresponding data on independent citations.ResultsIn total, 932 peer review reports from 373 manuscripts were analysed. At least one additional citation was requested in 25.9% (n=241) of reports. Self-citation requests were included in 44.4% of reports requesting additional citations (11.5% of all reports). Requests for self-citation were significantly more likely than independent citations to be incorporated in the published manuscript (65.1% vs 52.1%; chi-square p=0.003). At the manuscript level, when requested, self-citations were incorporated in 76.6% of manuscripts (n=72; 19.3% of all manuscripts) compared with 68.5% of manuscripts with independent citation requests (n=102; 27.3% of manuscripts). A significant interaction was observed between the presence of self-citation requests and the likelihood of any citation request being incorporated (100% incorporation in manuscripts with self-citation requests alone versus 62.7–72.2% with any independent citation request; Fisher’s exact test p<0.0005).ConclusionsRequests for self-citations during the peer review process are common. The transparency of open peer review may have the unexpected effect of encouraging authors to incorporate self-citation requests by disclosing peer reviewer identity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document