PRE-score's Managing Director Adam Etkin's Open Peer Review Presentation from CSE 2014.

1. {
Open Peer ReviewThe Good, the Bad and the Ugly

2. What IS “Open”?

3.  More openness to provide assurance that you did what you said you
would
 Openness to share more, but not all, information about the process
 Open the box to show everything you did
 Open to all to view and participate
There’s not just one “right” approach
One size does not fit all

4. Before Opening the Box

5. PROS
 Increased level of trust & transparency
 Reviewers will think more carefully about the research and provide more
attentive, detailed comments
 May expose possible conflicts of interest
 Reduction of antagonistic comments and unsupported criticisms
 Post-publication open review may result in a larger pool of reviewers
 Faster speed to publication
 Reviewers are acknowledged and get credit for their contributions
CONS
 Increased difficulty in finding reviewers (Reality check!)
 Younger scientists may feel it difficult to be completely candid, knowing that the
author they are reviewing may have influence over their future
 Well-known authors could receive preferential treatment
 There may be legal and copyright issues to consider
Pros & Cons of Open Review
I’d like your honest opinion on something…..

6.  We support validation of all approaches to peer review
 We support sharing additional information around the peer
review process while respecting the need for anonymity
 We support more open approaches, if desired
 We want to help reviewers get credit for the valuable service
they perform
How Can PRE-score Help?
Online Demo

7. Thank You!
Adam Etkin
aetkin@prescore.org
www.prescore.org
Twitter: @prescore1 and @adametkin

10. Info about peer review
process:
• COPE member?
• Rounds of review
• Plagiarism screening?
• Roles who participated
Additional Info:
• Reviewer comments
• Reviewer names