Slides from the Taylor & Francis Roadshow workshop in Portland, OR on October 20th, 2015.

1. Open Peer Review
Emily Ford
Urban & Public Affairs Librarian
Portland State University
forder@pdx.edu

2. WHAT IS PEER REVIEW?

3. WHAT IS THE GOAL OF PEER
REVIEW?

4. “…Depending on its environment, peer reviewing can
differ as to its purposes, participants, process, and
product. In qualitative research, peer review may also
be used to improve a research proposal or project's
trustworthiness.”
-Chenail, R. (2008). Peer Review. In Lisa M. Given (Ed.), The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research
Methods. (pp. 605-607).
“…the goal of peer review is to make good and
defensible judgments rather than to have high
reliability…”
-Mark,M. & Chua, P. (2005). Peer Review. In S. Mathison (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Evaluation. (p. 301).

5. Peer Review Process

6. Taweed Manzoor
flic.kr/p/4w7zdc
CC-BY
Open Review

7. Rob Cottingham
flic.kr/p/8FbWsQ
CC-BY-NC

8. Before During After
Before & During Pics in Public Domain:
1.usa.gov/1LkVhjS
Tony Webster
flic.kr/p/vK44SY
CC-BY

9. Before
F1000Research
In the Library with the Lead
Pipe

10. During
BioMed Central
PeerJ
Atmospheric Chemistry &
Physics

11. After
PLoS One
BMJ

12. WHO DOES THE REVIEWING?

13. Author identified
reviewers
Editors
Author-supplied reviewers
Editor-supplied reviewers
Expert PEERJ Community
Members
Academic EditorsScientific Community
Referees
Editors
Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics
Reviewers
Editors
Reviewers
Editors

14. Daniel Lee
flic.kr/p/nrwgpV
CC-BY-ND

15. Before After
Before Pics in Public Domain:
1.usa.gov/1LkVhjS
Tony Webster
flic.kr/p/vK44SY
CC-BY

16. Submission
Review
Publication
Open Peer Review Process
OR

17. Gideon Burton
flic.kr/p/5P2D9w
CC-BY-SA

18. FOR YOU, WHAT ARE THE PROS?

19. FOR YOU, WHAT ARE THE CONS?

20. Open Peer Review
Pro
• Reviewer accountability
• Better reviews
• Enhances discourse for readers
• Provides for developmental
writing & research relationship
• Timeline to publish/reviews
• Transparency in editorial
decision-making
• Reviewers’ acknowledgment
for work
• Discourse among reviewers
Con
• Protects against implicit bias
• Recruiting reviewers
• Adoption Barriers
• Hard to manage (?)

21. WHAT WOULD IT TAKE FOR YOU TO
PARTICIPATE?

22. Author identified
reviewers
Editors
Author-supplied reviewers
Editor-supplied reviewers
Expert PEERJ Community
Members
Academic EditorsScientific Community
Referees
Editors
Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics
Reviewers
Editors
Reviewers
Editors

23. Garry Knight
flic.kr/p/7qw7iv
CC-BY