Cet article relate le déroulement de l’expérimentation d’un dispositif d’évaluation ouverte par les pairs et de commentaire ouvert, pour des propositions d’articles à la revue en sciences de l’environnement VertigO, publication scientifique électronique en accès libre.
Si cette expérimentation ne s’est pas déroulée sur un temps assez long (4 mois) et un corpus assez étendu (10 manuscrits) pour en tirer des conclusions quantitatives fermes, elle expose néanmoins des pistes et des réflexions concrètes sur les potentialités et les limites de l’ouverture des processus d’évaluation – au sens large – pour la publication scientifique.
Se basant sur l’exemplarité de l’expérience et une observation participante en tant que secrétaire de rédaction consacré à l’évaluation ouverte, l’article propose finalement la modélisation du prototype expérimenté. Ce modèle, surnommé OPRISM, pourrait être utilisé dans d’autres cadres éditoriaux pour les sciences humaines et sociales.
URL : https://hal-paris1.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01283582v1
This article argues that the pedagogical and scholarly benefits of open peer review far outweigh those of traditional double-blind peer review, but require a shift in our perspective of the function and value of peer review – from a gate-keeping process, toward a supportive, constructive process of collaboration between peers and mentors.
URL : http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2015.1085857
The purpose of this paper is twofold, first, to discuss the current and future issues around post-publication open peer review. Second, to highlight some of the main protagonists and platforms that encourages open peer review, pre-and post-publication.
The first part of the paper aims to discuss the facilitators and barriers that will enable and prevent academics engaging with the new and established platforms of scholarly communication and review. These issues are covered with the intention of proposing further dialogue within the academic community that ultimately address researchers’ concerns, whilst continuing to nurture a progressive approach to scholarly communication and review. The paper will continue to look at the prominent open post-publication platforms and tools and discuss whether in the future it will become a standard model.
The paper identifies several problems, not exclusive to open peer review that could inhibit academics from being open with their reviews and comments of other’s research. Whilst identifies opportunities to be had by embracing a new era of academic openness.
The paper summarises key platforms and arguments for open peer review and will be of interest to researchers in different disciplines as well as the wider academic community wanting to know more about scholarly communications and measurement.
This paper looks at many of the new platforms that have been previously ignored and discusses issues relating to open peer review that have only been touched on in brief by other published research.
URL : http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/OIR-06-2015-0182
To assess whether reports from reviewers recommended by authors show a bias in quality and recommendation for editorial decision, compared with reviewers suggested by other parties, and whether reviewer reports for journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models differ with regard to report quality and reviewer recommendations.
Retrospective analysis of the quality of reviewer reports using an established Review Quality Instrument, and analysis of reviewer recommendations and author satisfaction surveys.
BioMed Central biology and medical journals. BMC Infectious Diseases and BMC Microbiology are similar in size, rejection rates, impact factors and editorial processes, but the former uses open peer review while the latter uses single-blind peer review. The Journal of Inflammation has operated under both peer review models.
Two hundred reviewer reports submitted to BMC Infectious Diseases, 200 reviewer reports submitted to BMC Microbiology and 400 reviewer reports submitted to the Journal of Inflammation.
For each journal, author-suggested reviewers provided reports of comparable quality to non-author-suggested reviewers, but were significantly more likely to recommend acceptance, irrespective of the peer review model (p<0.0001 for BMC Infectious Diseases, BMC Microbiology and the Journal of Inflammation). For BMC Infectious Diseases, the overall quality of reviewer reports measured by the Review Quality Instrument was 5% higher than for BMC Microbiology (p=0.042). For the Journal of Inflammation, the quality of reports was the same irrespective of the peer review model used.
Reviewers suggested by authors provide reports of comparable quality to non-author-suggested reviewers, but are significantly more likely to recommend acceptance. Open peer review reports for BMC Infectious Diseases were of higher quality than single-blind reports for BMC Microbiology. There was no difference in quality of peer review in the Journal of Inflammation under open peer review compared with single blind.
URL : Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models
DOI : 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008707
“The aim of this paper is to support initiatives that stimulate volunteer involvement in creating qualitatively good conversations about the law on the internet. The article’s core argument is that policies on open access, copyright and library services all concentrate nowon the results of scholarly conversations, while a shift in focus towards the process of scholarly communication is needed to develop new incentives for a culture of sharing. Ways to foster openness in scholarly communication need to be discipline specific. This will be elaborated by discussing the plan for an open environment for collaboration on an English translation of a Dutch introduction to private law.”
URL : http://webjcli.org/article/view/302/421
Defining and characterizing open peer review: a review of the literature :
“Changes in scholarly publishing have resulted in a move toward openness. To this end, new, open models of peer review are emerging. While the scholarly literature has examined and discussed open peer review, no established definition of it exists, nor are there uniform implementations of open peer review processes. This article examines the literature discussing open peer review, identifies common open peer review definitions, and describes eight common characteristics of open peer review: signed review, disclosed review, editor-mediated review, transparent review, crowdsourced review, prepublication review, synchronous review, and post-publication review. This article further discusses benefits and challenges to the scholarly publishing community posed by open peer review, and concludes that open peer review can and should exist within the current scholarly publishing paradigm.”
URL : http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/ulib_fac/1/
The four pillars of scholarly publishing: The future and a foundation :
“With the rise of electronic publishing and the inherent paradigm shifts for so many other scientific endeavours, it is time to consider a change in the practices of scholarly publication in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. To facilitate the speed and quality of science, the future of scholarly communication will rest on four pillars – an ecosystem of scholarly products, immediate and open access, open peer review, and full recognition for participating in the process. These four pillars enable us to build better tools to facilitate the discovery of new relevant work for individual scientists, one of the greatest challenges of our time as we cope with the current deluge of scientific information. By incorporating these principles into future publication platforms, we argue that science and society will be better served than by remaining locked into a publication formula that arose in the 1600s. It has served its purpose admirably and well, but it is time to move forward. With the rise of the Internet, scholarly publishing has embraced electronic distribution. But the tools afforded by the Internet and other advancing technologies have profound implications for scholarly communication beyond just distribution. We argue that, to best serve science, the process of scholarly communication must embrace these advances and evolve. Here we consider the current state of the process in ecology and evolutionary biology and propose directions for change. We identify four pillars for the future of scientific communication: (1) an ecosystem of scholarly products; (2) immediate and open access; (3) open peer review; and (4) full recognition for participating in the process. These four pillars will guide the development of better tools and practices for discovering and sharing scientific knowledge in a modern networked world. Things were far different when the existing system arose in the 1600s, and though it has served its purpose admirably and well, it is time to move forward.”
URL : https://peerj.com/preprints/11/