Opening up the review process: alternative peer review tools in - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

• 20. 01. 2017

1

Opening up the review process: alternative peer review tools in scholarly publishing

Leibniz Journal Management Workshop - Berlin

• 20. 01. 2017

Leibniz Association Leibniz Association 2

Our mission

pening UP new methods, indicators and tools for .

within the Open Science ecosystem.

peer review

dissemination

• f research

results impact measurement

Analysis

• f

available methods User centered evaluatio n Defining require- ments Involving stakehold

• ers

Topics Use cases Methodolog y

Arts and Humanitie s Social sciences Life sciences Energy

• 20. 01. 2017

3

Target communities

• 20. 01. 2017

4

• Analyze methods and tools, traditional but also

innovative and emerging ones,

• define roles and processes in non-traditional peer

review,

• develop a coherent, practical and validated

framework for open peer review.

Peer review landscape scan

• 20. 01. 2017

5

What is Open Peer Review?

• 20. 01. 2017

6

Established review system

Quality control Checking validitiy Assessing originality and significance

Lengthy Costly Bias Lack of standards Abuse

Tansparency Motivation Democratization Digital gap Bias Problems of open ID

SWOT

• 20. 01. 2017

7

Open peer review: defining terms

Controversial concept: being used for several fairly different models of peer review.

• pen names/ID
• pen process peer review

community peer review

double blind single blind blind until purchased unattributed

• ptionally
• pen

fully open

Degree of openness: a peer review continuum on a scale from closed to

• pen

Paglione 2015

• 20. 01. 2017

8

Defining open peer review: attributes

authors and reviewers are aware of each other's identity review process does not follow the standard temporal order of classical peer review (submission, review, publication) review reports are published alonside the relevant article wider community to contribute to the review process de-coupled from publishing: facilitated by a different

• rganizational entity

than the venue of publication direct reciprocal discussion between author(s) and reviewers, between reviewers.

Open identity Open report Open interactio n Open participatio n Open platform Openness in time

Ross-Hellauer 2016

• 20. 01. 2017

9

Alternative review services

Publishers Publishing platforms Independent review services Repository based review platforms and tools Review applications

• 20. 01. 2017

10

Alternative review methods and tools

Open peer review

Peer/public commentar y Post- publicatio n peer review

Decoupled peer review

Portable/ cascading peer review Machin e-aided review

Transparency

Fast dissemination of publications

Standardization Openness in time

Incentives/motivation for review

• 20. 01. 2017

11

OPR as game changer: Redefining scholarly communication

• 20. 01. 2017

12

Changing roles

Role of peer review

Functions: critical review/checking the soundness of research assessing originality, novelty, interest

Changing role of editors

Tasks: first scan, finding reviewers, reviewing, collaboration with authors/other editors

Growing responsibility of authors

Tasks: finding reviewers, cooperation with editors/reviewers, revisions based on community comments Role of the community/peers: who is the peer?

Involvement of peers

• 20. 01. 2017

13

Growing demands

• 1. Transparency

Novel Models for Open Peer Review. OpenAIRE report 2016

• 20. 01. 2017

14

Growing demands

• 2. Incentives to review
• Monetary (2009 peer reviw survey results not in favour)
• Social: crediting peer review

ü Publons, Peerage of Science ü Peer review in academic promotion- recommendation of the OSI workgroup:

Address incentives and motivations to participate in peer review, not only in the context of rewards

• r credits

for individuals but also in terms of the importance of peer review for promotion and

• tenure. (Acreman 2016)
• 3. Mentoring peer review
• Training is not provided in graduate or postgraduate education.
• The process is often not formalized or communicated.
• 4. Standards

• 20. 01. 2017

15

Open science

Good peer review depends on the trust and cooperation of all the players – reviewers and authors rely on each other to do a good job and both gain skills and experience from seeing the other side of the process. Leila Jones, Journals

Development Manager, Taylor & Francis

Open Science

Collabo- ration

Open process

Open results

• 20. 01. 2017

16

Open science

Open Science is the practice of science in such a way that others can collaborate and contribute, where research data, lab notes and other research processes are freely available, under terms that enable reuse, redistribution and reproduction of the research and its underlying data and methods. Wikipedia defines open science within the context

• f six aspects .(based on Kraker and penscienceASAP)

The ultimate goal is to enhance openness in disseminating and sharing research data, software code, research results and papers, and in peer- review.

(Masuzzo)

• 20. 01. 2017

17

Open collaborations

C O M M U N I C A T I O N

2016-08-11 18

See more of OpenUP:

http://openup-h2020.eu/ https://twitter.com/ProjectOpenUP https://www.facebook.com/projectopenup/?fref=ts

Edit Görögh goeroegh@sub.uni- goettingen.de

The OpenUP project received funding through the H2020 Framework programme, GA No: 710722

• 20. 01. 2017

Leibniz Journal Management Workshop - Berlin 19

References

• Acreman, B. et. al. 2016. Report from the Peer Review Workgroup. Open Scholarship

Initiative Proceedings, Vol. 1. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13021/G8K88P

• FOSTER. 2016. Open Science Definition. Accessed on 16.01.2017:

https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/foster-taxonomy/open-science-definition

• Masuzzo P, Martens L. (2017) Do you speak open science? Resources and tips to learn the
• language. PeerJ Preprints 5:e2689v1https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.2689v1
• Paglione, L and Lawrence R. 2015. Data exchange standards to support and acknowledge

peer-review activity. Learned Publishing, 28: 309–316. doi:10.1087/20150411

• Peer Review Survey 2009. http://www.senseaboutscience.org/news.php/87/peer-review-

survey-2009. (follow-up study of PRC 2008)

• Novel Models for Open Peer Review. 2017. OpenAIRE2020 report.
• Ross-Hellauer, Tony. 2016. Defining Open Peer Review: Part One – Competing Definitions.
• OpenAIREblog. Accessed on 16.11.2016: https://blogs.openaire.eu/?p=1371
• Ross-Hellauer, Tony. 2016. Defining Open Peer Review: Part Two – Seven Traits of OPR.
• OpenAIREblog. Accessed on 16.11.2016: https://blogs.openaire.eu/?p=1410
• Ross-Hellauer, T. 2016. Disambiguating post-publication peer review. OpenAIRE blog.

Accessed on Sept. 14, 2016: https://blogs.openaire.eu/?p=1205