Download to read offline
![• OPR is a very complex issue – what should be made
open, in which circumstances, at what stage, to whom?
• “The large number of possible configurations of options presents
a tool-kit for differing communities to construct open peer review
systems that reflect their own needs, preferences and goals.”
(Ross-Hellauer, 2017)
• We need more evidence to help judge!
• “[T]here is often little evidence to support or refute many of these
claims [regarding OPR]” (Ross-Hellauer, 2017)
• What I think we need
• Open up the data!
• Multi-stakeholder agreement on definitions and priorities for
research
• Cross-publisher/-journal studies on what works and what doesn’t
• See:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2017/09/13/open-
peer-review-bringing-transparency-accountability-and-inclusivity-
to-the-peer-review-process/
COASP 2017, Lisbon 20-09-2017 @tonyR_H](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/ross-hellauercoaspoprv2-170920103645/75/Gauging-researcher-attitudes-to-open-peer-review-23-2048.jpg)
Uploaded byOpenAIRE
Gauging researcher attitudes to open peer review
The document discusses the attitudes of researchers towards open peer review (OPR), emphasizing its increasing acceptance within the scientific community. A survey revealed that a significant majority of respondents have practical experience with OPR and support its common use, although there is notable resistance to open identities. Recommendations for improving OPR include enhancing transparency, education, and incentives for reviewers while recognizing the diversity of stakeholder perspectives across disciplines.
More Related Content
Similar to Gauging researcher attitudes to open peer review
Gauging researcher attitudes to open peer review
- 1. Gauging researcher attitudes toopen peer review Tony Ross-Hellauer State and University Library Göttingen Know-Center GmbH COASP 2017 Lisbon, 20th September 2017 @tonyR_H @openaire_eu
- 2. Human Network 50 Partners fromevery EU country, and beyond Data centers, universities, libraries, repositories, legal experts Digital Networ k … fosters the social and technical links that enable Open Science in Europe and beyond COASP 2017, Lisbon 20-09-2017 @tonyR_H
- 3. Transparency Accountability Inclusivity Responsibility Community& Collaboration Visibility Rigour Equality Public good Reproducibility Findability Accessibility Interoperability Re-usability Innovation Principles of Open Scholarship CC BY
- 4. Open Science ismore than just Open Access … COASP 2017, Lisbon 20-09-2017 Opening up scientific processes and products from all levels to everyone … • Open Access (publications, data, software, educational resources) • Open Methodology (open notebooks, study preregistration) • Citizen Science • Open Evaluation / Open Peer Review @tonyR_H
- 5. COASP 2017, Lisbon20-09-2017 Waste d effort Traditional peer review has problems … CC BY Mike Licht CC BY Mike EisenTime Accountability & biasLack of incentives @tonyR_H
- 6. DEFINING OPR COASP 2017,Lisbon 20-09-2017 @tonyR_H
- 7. Peer review isusually: Anonymous: reviewers unknown to authors, or both authors and reviewers unknown to each other Opaque: neither the process nor the reviews are made public Selective: reviewers selected by editors COASP 2017, Lisbon 20-09-2017 @tonyR_H
- 8. “Open Peer Review”encompasses diverse constellations of many distinct aspects • Open identities • Open reports • Open participation • Open interaction • Open pre-review manuscripts • Open final-version commenting • Open platforms COASP 2017, Lisbon 20-09-2017 Primary aspects Secondar y aspects Image CC BY AC McCann, w/ amendment (by me) ** 122 definitions collected and analysed ** ** 22 distinct configurations of 7 traits identified ** See: Ross-Hellauer, 2017, "What is open peer review? A systematic review", F1000Research (DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.11369.2)
- 9. Distribution of OPRtraits amongst definitions Ross-Hellauer, 2017, "What is open peer review? A systematic review", F1000Research (DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.11369.2)
- 10. 22 unique configurationsof OPR traits Ross-Hellauer, 2017, "What is open peer review? A systematic review", F1000Research (DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.11369.2) @tonyR_HCOASP 2017, Lisbon 20-09-2017
- 11. Slide, Edit Gorogh,OpenUP • 11 COASP 2017, Lisbon 20-09-2017
- 12. ATTITUDES TO OPR COASP2017, Lisbon 20-09-2017 @tonyR_H
- 13. Focus groups • Findways to acknowledge and reward reviewers appropriately • Support development of mandates and policies • Create a common code of conduct, esp taking into account the needs of young COASP 2017, Lisbon 20-09-2017 See: Deppe, A., Hermans, E., & Ross- Hellauer, T. (2016). Open Peer Review - Models, Benefits and Limitations / Workshop Report 2016. Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.61378 OPR Workshop - Göttingen, Germany 7 June 2016 • Very heterogeneous views on what OPR is • No one-size-fits-all: Must respect stakeholder views and cultural differences across disciplines @tonyR_H
- 14. Survey on attitudesto OPR • Online survey • Open for one month (Sept – Oct 2016) • 3062 complete responses from authors, reviewers and editors See: Ross-Hellauer, Deppe & Schmidt, 2017, "OpenAIRE survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers" (preprint) (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.570864) COASP 2017, Lisbon 20-09-2017 @tonyR_H
- 15. COASP 2017, Lisbon20-09-2017 @tonyR_H
- 16. COASP 2017, Lisbon20-09-2017 @tonyR_H
- 17. COASP 2017, Lisbon20-09-2017 @tonyR_H
- 18. COASP 2017, Lisbon20-09-2017 @tonyR_H
- 19. Survey results summary •OPR is already mainstream • 76.2% have practical experience • 60% believe OPR should be common practice • Positive reactions to most OPR traits (esp. open interaction, reports, participation) • However, strong rejection of open identities (47.7% against) COASP 2017, Lisbon 20-09-2017 @tonyR_H
- 20. NEXT STEPS COASP 2017,Lisbon 20-09-2017 @tonyR_H
- 21. We need … •More transparency – being clear on peer review policies and what implications for reviewers/authors • More education – what OPR is, how to review responsibly • More incentives - make reviews count by making them citable, discoverable, and creditable (Crossref) • More evidence … COASP 2017, Lisbon 20-09-2017 @tonyR_H
- 22. “What is openpeer review – and should I be doing it?” Libby Pier, July 2017 https://libbypier.com/thoughts-musings/2017/7/14/what-is-open-peer-review COASP 2017, Lisbon 20-09-2017
- 23. • OPR isa very complex issue – what should be made open, in which circumstances, at what stage, to whom? • “The large number of possible configurations of options presents a tool-kit for differing communities to construct open peer review systems that reflect their own needs, preferences and goals.” (Ross-Hellauer, 2017) • We need more evidence to help judge! • “[T]here is often little evidence to support or refute many of these claims [regarding OPR]” (Ross-Hellauer, 2017) • What I think we need • Open up the data! • Multi-stakeholder agreement on definitions and priorities for research • Cross-publisher/-journal studies on what works and what doesn’t • See: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2017/09/13/open- peer-review-bringing-transparency-accountability-and-inclusivity- to-the-peer-review-process/ COASP 2017, Lisbon 20-09-2017 @tonyR_H
- 24.