scholarly journals Open science in practice: 300 published research ideas and outcomes illustrate how RIO Journal facilitates engagement with the research process

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Mietchen ◽  
Lyubomir Penev ◽  
Teodor Georgiev ◽  
Boriana Ovcharova ◽  
Iva Kostadinova
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Societal Challenges ◽  
Research Cycle ◽  
Zoom In ◽  
Published Research

Since Research Ideas and Outcomes was launched in late 2015, it has stimulated experimentation around the publication of and engagement with research processes, especially those with a strong open science component. Here, we zoom in on the first 300 RIO articles that have been published and elucidate how they relate to the different stages and variants of the research cycle, how they help address societal challenges and what forms of engagement have evolved around these resources, most of which have a nature and scope that would prevent them from entering the scholarly record via more traditional journals. Building on these observations, we describe some changes we recently introduced in the policies and peer review process at RIO to further facilitate engagement with the research process, including the establishment of an article collections feature that allows us to bring together research ideas and outcomes from within one research cycle or across multiple ones, irrespective of where they have been published.

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.

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 Perspectives on involvement in the peer-review process: surveys of patient and public reviewers at two journals

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (9) ◽  
pp. e023357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Schroter ◽  
Amy Price ◽  
Ella Flemyng ◽  
Andrew Demaine ◽  
Jim Elliot ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Annual Acknowledgement ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Free Access ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
User Friendly

ObjectiveIn 2014/2015,The BMJandResearch Involvement and Engagement(RIE) became the first journals to routinely include patients and the public in the peer review process of journal articles. This survey explores the perspectives and early experiences of these reviewers.DesignA cross-sectional survey.Setting and participantsPatient and public reviewers forThe BMJandRIEwho have been invited to review.ResultsThe response rate was 69% (157/227) for those who had previously reviewed and 31% (67/217) for those who had not yet reviewed. Reviewers described being motivated to review by the opportunity to include the patient voice in the research process, influence the quality of the biomedical literature and ensure it meets the needs of patients. Of the 157 who had reviewed, 127 (81%) would recommend being a reviewer to other patients and carers. 144 (92%) thought more journals should adopt patient and public review. Few reviewers (16/224, 7%) reported concerns about doing open review. Annual acknowledgement on the journals’ websites was welcomed as was free access to journal information. Participants were keen to have access to more online resources and training to improve their reviewing skills. Suggestions on how to improve the reviewing experience included: allowing more time to review; better and more frequent communication; a more user-friendly process; improving guidance on how to review including videos; improving the matching of papers to reviewers’ experience; providing more varied sample reviews and brief feedback on the usefulness of reviews; developing a sense of community among reviewers; and publicising of the contribution that patient and public review brings.ConclusionsPatient and public reviewers shared practical ideas to improve the reviewing experience and these will be reviewed to enhance the guidance and support given to them.

scholarly journals Ethics in Ethnobiology Publication

2012 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 96-97
Author(s):  
James R. Welch
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Life Sciences ◽  
Multiple Stakeholders ◽  
The Social ◽  
Cumulative Process ◽  
High Standards ◽  
Published Research

With the recent multiplication of traditional and electronic venues for publishing in ethnobiology, the social sciences, the life sciences, and related fields, it is increasingly important that authors practice self-diligence to ensure that the contents of their publications meet criteria of veracity and ethical soundness. Although the peer-review process encourages high standards, it is an insufficient means for verifying the ethical worthiness of most publications. The ethical merits of published research derive from a cumulative process including formulating a research design, obtaining permissions, collecting and analyzing data, and finally composing and submitting a manuscript. Unfortunately, there is no failsafe ethical gatekeeper at any stage of the process. The importance of ethical publishing is all the more important in the field of ethnobiology, as professionals in the field  often cross the intellectual and methodological boundaries between disciplines, and their research often involves multiple stakeholders in widespread jurisdictions.

scholarly journals Open Up: A Survey on Open and Non-anonymized Peer Reviewing

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lonni Besançon ◽  
Niklas Rönnberg ◽  
Jonas Löwgren ◽  
Jonathan P. Tennant ◽  
Matthew Cooper
Keyword(s):  
Human Computer Interaction ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Practical Implementation ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Open Review

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.

scholarly journals Open Code and Peer Review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Eglen ◽  
Erik Lieungh
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Applied Mathematics ◽  
Computer Programs ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Theoretical Physics ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
University Of Cambridge ◽  
The University

In this episode, we are talking about code and the benefits of making your code available in a peer review process and having it checked. Our guest is Dr. Stephen Eglen from the department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge. Together with Dr. Daniel Nüst, from the University of Münster, he has created CodeCheck – an Open Science initiative to facilitate the sharing of computer programs and results presented in scientific publications. The host of this episode is Erik Lieungh. This episode was first published 20 January 2020.

scholarly journals pyOpenSci: Open and reproducible research, powered by Python

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Trizna ◽  
Leah Wasser ◽  
David Nicholson
Keyword(s):  
Open Source ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Open Source Software ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Application Programming Interface ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Reproducible Research

pyOpenSci (short for Python Open Science), funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, is building a diverse community that supports well documented, open source Python software that enables open reproducible science. pyOpenSci will work with the community to openly develop best practice guidelines and open standards for scientific Python software, which will be reinforced through a community-led peer review process and training. Packages that complete the peer review process become a part of the pyOpenSci ecosystem, where maintenance can be shared to ensure longevity and stability in code. pyOpenSci packages are also eligible for a “fast tracked” acceptance to JOSS (Journal of Open Source Software). In addition, we provide review for open science tools that would be of interest to TDWG members but are not within scope for JOSS, such as API (Application Programming Interface) wrappers. pyOpenSci is built on top of the successful model of rOpenSci, founded in 2011, which has fostered the development of several useful biodiversity informatics R packages. The pyOpenSci team looks to following the lessons learned by rOpenSci, to create a similarly successful community. We invite TDWG members developing open source software tools in Python to become part of the pyOpenSci community.

scholarly journals Standardising Peer Review in Paleontology journals

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Tennant
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Publishing Process ◽  
Review Articles ◽  
Quality Threshold ◽  
Published Research

The purpose of this operational checklist serves one primary purpose: For an article to 'pass' peer review, articles must satisfy a specific quality threshold based on standardised guidelines. Thus, the quality of the peer review process is simultaneously ensured through an open and technical standardisation process. This should be of interest to all stakeholders engaged in the publishing process, including authors, editors, reviewers, and the publishers themselves, who all have a duty to uphold the integrity of the published research record. While it might initially increase the bureaucracy involved in publishing, ultimately it should save time and effort as it becomes more widely established as an embedded scholarly norm, with integrity a formative part of peer review culture.

scholarly journals Why most pre-published research findings are false.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Lobentanzer
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Editorial Policies ◽  
Scientific Merit ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Open Discussion ◽  
Biomedical Field ◽  
Published Research

Caused by the recent surge in preprint volume, particularly in the light of the immense rapidity of Covid-19 research, the question arises, “How reliable are the findings that are reported via preprint?” This question poses serious challenges in estimation and validation of the extent of false or even fraudulent science on preprint servers, and has far-reaching implications for editorial policies. As preprint volume continuously grows, but the interval between preprint and publication does not, the limit of peer-review is fast approaching. The scientific merit or validity of preprints is not assessed by preprint service providers, and hence it is feasible to assume that, comparatively, preprints will be less reproducible than peer-reviewed articles. Publication metadata predict a saturation of the peer-review process in the coming decade, and necessitate an open discussion about editorial policies and publication infrastructure in the biomedical field.

scholarly journals Open Up: A Survey on Open and Non-anonymized Peer Reviewing

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lonni Besançon ◽  
Niklas Rönnberg ◽  
Jonas Löwgren ◽  
Jonathan Tennant ◽  
Matthew Cooper
Keyword(s):  
Human Computer Interaction ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Practical Implementation ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Open Review

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document