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.

OSFair2017 Workshop | Peer Review – time for credit, reward and recognition


Published on

Michael Markie talks about the benefits of Open Peer Review | OSFair2017 Workshop

Workshop title: Peer review at the crossroads

Workshop overview:
The workshop builds on the results of the OpenUp landscape scan and the OpenAIRE report on open peer review. The workshop has multiple purposes including (1) assessing existing and evolving methods and functions of alternative peer review mechanisms, (2) breaking down peer review into the basic processes to identify the benefits and challenges, and (3) identifying questions and issues that need further investigation.

Group discussions will also touch upon issues such as the sustainability, long-term availability of alternative review tools, and their uptake by researchers, and the incorporation of these methods into institutional, national, funders’ and publishers’ policies.

OpenUP and OpenAIRE are dedicated to engage with different (disciplinary, inter-disciplinary) research communities from the social sciences, life sciences, energy, arts and humanities to identify the requirements from the emerging trends as posed by Open Science and e-infrastructural interconnected environments. Both projects aim at developing a sustainable framework that is relevant for and responsive to the Open Science needs.


Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

OSFair2017 Workshop | Peer Review – time for credit, reward and recognition

  1. 1. 8th September 2017 Michael Markie @mmmarksman Publisher, F1000 Platforms Peer Review – time for credit, reward and recognition
  2. 2. “In an ideal world peer review should be an open supportive and collaborative process by which a group of independent scientists assess the quality of a body of research” Watson M. Opiniomics. Why anonymous peer review is bad for science. bad-for-science/. My favourite peer-review definition
  3. 3. It’s a human endeavour… Peer review is an art rather than a science making it susceptible to flaws (and politics) • Disorderly process • Driven by subjectivity • Fallible to mistakes • Open to abuse Image credit: Belle Mellor:
  4. 4. Open or Closed? • Shows the reviewer’s informed opinion of the work • Demonstrates experience as a reviewer • Reviewer comments put article in context • Reduces bias among reviewers • More constructive reviews • Can receive credit for the work involved in conducting the review • Retribution or revenge from authors who receive a negative review • Can have career repercussions for younger students • Facilitates a “Club” mentality • Don’t want to be negative towards colleagues We need to move into a new era of fairer and more efficient peer review. FOR OPEN AGAINST OPEN
  5. 5. Open is the way forward for credit But… its hard to credit something you can’t see! Open is more ethical, without cutting down on quality. Transparency allows for an independent judgment of the whole process.
  6. 6. Peer review is a research output Integral part of the scientific endeavour Gold-standard for verification Improves quality and upholds standards Allows others to build upon the knowledge base
  7. 7. Publons –documenting what you’ve done
  8. 8. Open = further credit opportunities • Adding name and affiliation means reviews can be attributed • Publishing the review means it can be given a permanent identifier • Publishing a review enables usage metrics to be added
  9. 9. Open = further credit opportunities
  10. 10. Should reviewers get paid? Time is money after all…?
  11. 11. Open peer review oath Principle 1: I will sign my name to my review Principle 2: I will review with integrity Principle 3: I will treat the review as a discourse with you; in particular, I will provide constructive criticism Principle 4: I will be an ambassador for the practice of open science Open peer review – enhance open science
  12. 12. If reviewing can be measured… • Could we be rewarded for it in researcher assessment? • Could it be acknowledged on tenure and promotion committees? • Could it complement the growing area of individual research metrics? • Could it decrease reviewer burden?
  13. 13. Questions and discussion