Thursday 12 September 2019, 10:45 AM – 11:30 AM (45 Min)
Open peer review is considered to be one of the pillars of Open Science and is a practice that is becoming more commonplace across the scholarly publishing world. Open peer review is currently being implemented in many different ways and there are a number of experiments underway that are designed to determine how best to deliver open peer review to best serve researchers working in different research areas and from across the career stages.
In this session we will hear from speakers about their involvement in initiatives designed to support the development and uptake of Open Science and about their efforts and views of the challenges that remain in taking open peer review – particularly from a scholarly publishing perspective – into the mainstream.
Matthew Hayes, Director of Publisher & Funder Growth, Publons
Abstract: ‘Transparent Peer Review: a practical solution to implement open peer review at scale’
How do we deliver transparency in peer review at scale for researchers, journals, and publishers? This talk will provide an overview of the Transparent Peer Review initiative: a cross-industry collaboration from Publons, Wiley and ScholarOne to develop a practical, scalable and flexible solution for journals to introduce open peer review to their publishing process. With minimal configuration needed to existing journal workflows, this is a friction-free, flexible way to open-up peer review at scale. For more info, see https://clarivate.com/blog/news/clarivate-analytics-expands-transparent-peer-review-pilot-with-wiley-to-new-titles/
Dr Bahar Mehmani, Reviewer Experience Lead, Elsevier
Abstract: ‘Publishing peer review reports and its impact on reviewer performance’
We examine the effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals involved in a pilot study at Elsevier. By considering 9,220 submissions and 18,525 reviews from 2010 to 2017, we measured changes both before and during the pilot and found that publishing reports did not significantly compromise referees’ willingness to review, recommendations, or turn-around times. Younger and non-academic scholars were more willing to accept to review and provided more positive and objective recommendations. Male referees tended to write more constructive reports during the pilot. Only 8.1% of referees agreed to reveal their identity in the published report. These findings suggest that open peer review does not compromise the process, at least when referees are able to protect their anonymity. (for more info see https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-08250-2)
Jadranka Stojanovski, Associate Professor, Department of Information Sciences, University of Zadar, Croatia
Abstract: ‘Taking the peer review out of the “black box“’
It is unquestionable that the peer review process is an essential part of the research assessment, shaping science and paving the way for future research. The anonymity of the reviewers and authors, the selectivity of the reviewers done by editors, multiple reviews and confidentiality are emphasized as its basic virtues. However, various studies proved that peer review is expensive, biased, unreliable, unable to detect errors, enabling non-ethical practices, not motivating, wasting knowledge and resources, and slowing down the publishing process. The present crisis could be solved by open peer review process where reviews are publicly available, and reviewers can disclose their identities. Shorter time of publishing process, easier identification of research misconduct, improved quality of the publication, improved review quality, and increased motivation of the reviewer are some of the advantages. We will discuss how different levels of peer review openness could enhance the quality of scholarly communication in general.