Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Scott Edmunds for #PeerRevWk17: Confessions of a pre-print & open peer review lover


Published on

Scott Edmunds talk for the #PeerRevWk17 webinar on #PreprintPeerReview: Confessions of a pre-print & open peer review lover

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Scott Edmunds for #PeerRevWk17: Confessions of a pre-print & open peer review lover

  1. 1. Pre-print & Open Peer Review Lover Scott Edmunds, Executive Editor
  2. 2. Open Review Circa 1982 H/T Matt Hodgkinson OPR nothing new, Food Microstructure published “Discussion With The Reviewers” 35 years ago
  3. 3. Open Review Circa 1999
  4. 4. Open Review Circa 1999 BMC Series Medical Journals
  5. 5. Open Review Circa 2012 Peer review mandated open and signed (no opt-out) Integrated with publons, & reviews credited with DataCite DOIs
  6. 6. Open Review Circa 2017 Tennant JP, Dugan JM, Graziotin D et al. A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer. F1000Research 2017, 6:1151
  7. 7. Game Changer: Pre-prints
  8. 8. Preprints + blogged reviews = real-time open-review
  9. 9. Open Peer Review Fears • Reviews are poorer quality? • Reviewers are less likely to reject? • More difficult to get reviewers • Reviews take longer • Authors will be vengeful
  10. 10. We can do RCTs to see efficacy F Goodlee, JAMA 2002:
  11. 11. Open Peer Review Myths • Reviews are poorer quality • Reviewers are less likely to reject Reviews more constructive & better quality No difference in acceptance/rejection rate
  12. 12. 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Mar-08 Sep-08 Mar-09 Sep-09 Mar-10 Sep-10 Mar-11 Sep-11 Mar-12 Sep-12 Mar-13 Sep-13 Mar-14 Med Genomics Genomics 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Jun-09 Dec-09 Jun-10 Dec-10 Jun-11 Dec-11 Jun-12 Dec-12 Jun-13 Dec-13 Jun-14 Med Genet Genet Data from similar scope open/closed review journals in BMC Series shows ~5- 10% harder to get referees for open review. (data from Tim Sands at BMC) Does take marginally longer to find reviewers (and for them to return reports – RCTs see few hours longer to write/return). BMC Series Medical Journals Cost = 5-10% harder to get reviewers More difficult to get reviewers? Reviews take longer?
  13. 13. Open Peer Review Myths • Authors will be vengeful (AKA we need to protect xyz) “It might be especially difficult to find referees for authors who hold positions of power and influence, or for those who are considered quarrelsome or vindictive by their peers. In particular, younger, less-established scientists … would be reluctant to reveal themselves, for fear of retaliation from their more powerful colleagues.”
  14. 14. Open Peer Review Myths • Authors will be vengeful Hands up who in science is happy with the idea that in our field “powerful” and “vindictive” scientists might want to “retaliate” against someone who has reviewed their work?!! Does anyone seriously think that that’s OK? Retaliatory, revenge attacks, by anyone, should be considered serious scientific misconduct and the perpetrators should be identified and sacked. It’s as bad, worse, than plagiarism or making up data. This kind of activity should spell the end of careers. Are we expected to sit back and accept that this kind of thing might happen?! Of course, this argument in support of anonymous peer review is actually a very powerful argument against it. Powerful or vindictive scientists are only able to take revenge attacks because they can hide behind a cloak of anonymity. If their reviews were published, alongside their names, then the community would soon recognise if they were behaving badly, and action would soon follow. The Mick Watson Response:
  15. 15. The only drawback to open peer review? The end of amusing reviewer 3 Downfall parody videos
  16. 16. Join GigaPanda to break the chains & open everything! Contact us: