Open up: a survey on open and non-anonymized peer reviewing

@article{Besanon2020OpenUA,
  title={Open up: a survey on open and non-anonymized peer reviewing},
  author={Lonni Besançon and N. R{\"o}nnberg and J. L{\"o}wgren and Jonathan P. Tennant and Matthew Cooper},
  journal={Research Integrity and Peer Review},
  year={2020},
  volume={5}
}
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… Expand
6 Citations

Figures from this paper

Attitudes and practices of open data, preprinting, and peer-review—A cross sectional study on Croatian scientists
TLDR
Overall, Croatian scientists’ attitudes towards these topics were generally neutral, and attitudes of scientist who previously engaged in open peer-review or preprinting were higher than of scientists that did not (Md 3.5 vs. 3.3, P<0.001, and Md 3.6 vs 3.2, respectively). Expand
The benefits to climate science of including early-career scientists as reviewers
Abstract. Early-career scientists (ECSs) are a large part of the workforce in science. While they produce new scientific knowledge that they share in publications, they are rarely invited toExpand
Open Science Saves Lives: Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic
TLDR
Concerns about the violation of some of the Open Science principles and its potential impact on the quality of research output are expressed and evidence of the misuses of these principles at different stages of the scientific process is provided. Expand
Open science saves lives: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic
TLDR
Concerns about the violation of some of the Open Science principles and its potential impact on the quality of research output are expressed and evidence of the misuses of these principles at different stages of the scientific process is provided. Expand
Рецензирование как инструмент обеспечения эффективной научной коммуникации: традиции и инновации
The fundamental importance of the peer review in the context of scientific communication determines the unprecedented attention paid to it by researchers around the world. New trends in scientificExpand

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 87 REFERENCES
Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers
TLDR
The results of this cross-disciplinary survey show the majority of respondents to be believe that OPR as a general concept should be mainstream scholarly practice, and high levels of support for most of the traits of OPR, particularly open interaction, open reports and final-version commenting. Expand
Emerging trends in peer review—a survey
TLDR
Two major trends are identified: the rapidly expanding role of preprint servers that dispense with traditional peer review altogether, and the growth of “non-selective review,” focusing on papers' scientific quality rather than their perceived importance and novelty. Expand
Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers
TLDR
The study found that the peer review process is highly regarded by the vast majority of researchers and considered by most to be essential to the communication of scholarly research. Expand
The Dark Side of Peer Review
Debates surrounding anonymous versus eponymous peer review are some of the most polarised in scholarly communication. Speak to one researcher, and they will tell you stories of the wonderfulExpand
What is open peer review? A systematic review
TLDR
A pragmatic definition of open peer review is proposed as an umbrella term for a number of overlapping ways that peer review models can be adapted in line with the aims of Open Science, including making reviewer and author identities open, publishing review reports and enabling greater participation in the peer review process. Expand
A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review
TLDR
There is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages, and a novel hybrid platform model is proposed that could resolve many of the socio-technical issues associated with peer review, and potentially disrupt the entire scholarly communication system. Expand
Peer review and secrecy in the "Information Age"
TLDR
This paper proposes a basic framework for secrecy and transparency as it relates to the peer review process of academic journals and examines some rationales given for the need for secrecy in peer review. Expand
Open peer review: A randomised controlled trial
TLDR
This study supports the feasibility of an open peer review system and identifies such a system's potential drawbacks. Expand
Double-Blind Review in Software Engineering Venues: The Community's Perspective
  • A. Bacchelli, M. Beller
  • Computer Science
  • 2017 IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion (ICSE-C)
  • 2017
TLDR
The results indicate that the costs, mostly logistic challenges and side effects, outnumber its benefits and mostly regard difficulty for authors in blinding papers, for reviewers in understanding the increment with respect to previous work from the same authors, and for organizers to manage a complex transition. Expand
The Blind Shall See! The Question of Anonymity in Journal Peer Review.
This article examines the issue of the respective knowledge of authors and reviewers: is it fairer to judge a manuscript in the full light of day, or hidden away from prying eyes? Should one knowExpand
...
1
2
3
4
5
...