DOCSLIB.ORG

Does the Use of Open, Non-Anonymous Peer Review In

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Does the Use of Open, Non-Anonymous Peer Review In Does the use of open, non-anonymous peer review in scholarly publishing introduce bias? Evidence from the F1000 post-publication open peer review publishing model Mike Thelwall, Statistical Cybermetrics Research Group, University of Wolverhampton, Wulfruna Street, Wolverhampton WV1 1LY, UK. ORCID:0000-0001-6065-205X Verena Weigert, Jisc, 15 Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1BW. ORCID: 0000-0003-4887-7867 Liz Allen, F1000, 34-42, Cleveland Street, London, W1T 4LB. ORCID: 0000-0002-9298-3168 Zena Nyakoojo, F1000Research, London W1T 4LB, UK. ORCID: 0000-0001-6812-4120 Eleanor-Rose Papas, Editorial Department, F1000Research, London W1T 4LB, UK. ORCID: 0000-0003-4293-4488 Competing interests: LA, ZN, and E-RP are currently employed by F1000Research Ltd. The data analysis was conducted independently by MT, and they were not involved in the pre- publication editorial checks or the peer review process. Background: Peer review remains an important feature of scholarly publishing to assure scrutiny and trust in research findings. As part of moves towards open knowledge practices, making peer review more open is increasingly cited as a way to deliver even fuller scrutiny and transparency of assessments around research – and there are many flavours of open peer review now in use across scholarly publishing. Open peer review, particularly where reviews are fully attributable and non-anonymised, has however been subject to criticism for the bias that may accompany its use. This study examines whether there is any evidence of bias in two areas of common critique of open, non-anonymous peer review – and used in the post- publication, peer review system operated by the open-access scholarly publishing platform F1000Research. First, is there evidence of bias where a reviewer based in a specific country assesses the work of an author also based in the same country? Second, are reviewers influenced by being able to see the comments and know the origins of previous reviewer? Methods: Scrutinising the open peer review comments published on F1000Research, we assess the extent of two frequently cited potential influences on reviewers that may be the result of the transparency offered by a fully attributable, open peer review publishing model: the national affiliations of authors and reviewers, and the ability of reviewers to view previously-published reviewer reports before submitting their own. The effects of these potential influences were investigated for all first versions of articles published between July 13, 2012, and July 8, 2019, to F1000Research. Results: First, in 16 out of the 20 countries with the most articles, there was a tendency for reviewers based in the same country to give a more positive review; the difference was statistically significant in one. Only 3 countries had the reverse tendency. Second, there is no evidence of a conformity bias. When reviewers mentioned a previous review in their peer review report, they were not more likely to give the same overall judgement. Although reviewers who had longer to potentially read a previously published reviewer reports were slightly less likely to agree with previous reviewer judgements, this could be due to these articles being difficult to judge rather than deliberate non-conformity. Conclusions: There is some evidence that being based in the same country as an author may influence a reviewer’s decision when the reviewer identity is public. There does however seem to be no evidence that being able to read an existing published review prior to submitting your own review overly influences a reviewer’s decision or encourages conformity. These findings are based entirely upon peer review data derived from the F1000Research platform which is one that offers open, invited peer review within a relatively unique post- publication publishing system. The findings do help to dispel some of the critique levelled at aspects of open peer review, though if the data were available we would ideally compare our results with data derived using alternative and established peer review practices (both open and closed). We would like to see a more robust evidence base to support decision making around aspects of the scholarly publishing system and peer review in particular. Keywords: Open science; Peer review; peer review biases; open peer review; F1000Research, post-publication peer review Introduction The trend towards more open and collaborative knowledge practices (‘open science’) has led to an increasing number of journals and publishing outlets offering ‘open peer review’ to various degrees (Lee & Moher, 2017; Morey, Chambers, Etchells, et al., 2016; Ross-Hellauer, 2017). F1000 today perhaps offers one of the most comprehensive versions of ‘open peer review’; across all its publishing platforms, a post-publication peer review model is provided alongside invited, open peer review. Each article, after initial editorial and objective checks (e.g. for ethical approval; plagiarism; and inclusion of underlying data) is published before peer review. The subsequent peer review process, notable in the debate about the value of open peer review, publishes the identities and affiliations of all peer reviewers alongside their narrative report. The publication process is iterative (‘continuous publishing’), with authors able to respond directly to their reviewers’ comments by providing a revised article version, linked to the previous version to preserve the revision history. To keep the process rapid and iterative, peer reviewer reports are published (following an initial check) as soon as they are submitted thus allowing the possibility for subsequent reviewers to read already published reports before submitting their own review. Additionally, the post-publication peer review model is intended to shift the role of peer review in scholarly publishing from its traditional focus on selecting content for publication, to one that helps to shape the research to be the best it can be – and providing this openly, allows readers to reflect on the development of a piece and consider any reviewer critique. Nevertheless, open peer review introduces the potential for specific types of reviewer biases and since peer review of scholarly output continues to provide an important quality control function (Siler, Lee, & Bero, 2015), it is important to examine the benefits and potential biases that newer open systems of peer review may introduce. There are many types of bias described within peer review processes and practices operated by grant funding agencies and in scholarly publishing, including according to: author/grant applicant demographic characteristics (Ceci & Williams, 2011; Fox, Burns, & Meyer, 2016; Tamblyn, Girad, Qian & Hanley 2018; Witteman, Hendricks, Straus & Tannenbaum 2019); author-reviewer speciality differences (cognitive distance) (Wang & Sandström, 2015); country of affiliation/article country of origin (Harris, Macinko, Jimenez, Mahfoud, & Anderson, 2015), and perceptions of authors’ institutional prestige (Peters & Ceci, 1982). Perhaps because such studies revealing some biases have been typically tested on the single-blind model (with author/grant applicant identity known by reviewers), there remains a widespread belief that double-blind peer review introduces the ‘least’ bias and is superior to open peer review approaches (Rodríguez-Bravo, Nicholas, Herman, et al., 2017; Mulligan, Hall, & Raphael, 2013; Moylan, Harold, O’Neill, & Kowalczuk, 2014). However, beliefs about the merits of open peer review are supported by limited empirical evidence and based upon survey and attitudinal research (Ross-Hellauer, Deppe, & Schmidt, 2017). From studies providing empirical insights into open peer review, there is evidence that providing peer review transparency has a minimal effect on review quality. Two randomised control trials of The BMJ did not find quality differences between the reviews provided when reviewers knew that their identities would be revealed, compared to blinded review (Van Rooyen, Godlee, Evans, Black & Smith, 1999) or when reviewers were told their reviews may be published online (Van Rooyen, Delamothe, & Evans, 2010). A study of a psychology journal found that reviews tended to be more carefully written when they were intended to be openly available (Walsh, Rooney, Appleby, & Wilkinson, 2000). A systematic review of research into peer review for biomedical journals found nine studies into concealing author or reviewer identity, but no conclusion could be reached overall about how this influenced review quality (Jefferson, Alderson, Wager, & Davidoff, 2002). However, a recent study of a large volume of articles submitted to Elsevier journals concluded that using an open peer review process does not compromise the quality and participation in the process, at least when reviewers are able to protect their anonymity (Bravo, Grimaldo, López-Iñesta, Mehmani, Squazzoni, 2019), although The BMJ reviewers were less willing to review when their identities would be revealed (Van Rooyen, Godlee, Evans, Black & Smith, 1999). While there is some evidence that open peer review might deter reviewer acceptance rates (Ross- Hellauer, Deppe, & Schmidt, 2017), there is limited empirical evidence about the effect that revealing reviewers’ identities and affiliations and ‘signed peer review’ policies, has on peer review in practice. As part of the efforts to provide a firmer evidence base to support decision-making around the use of open peer review, this article tests the extent to which a post-publication peer
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Do You Speak Open Science? Resources and Tips to Learn the Language
    Do You Speak Open Science? Resources and Tips to Learn the Language. Paola Masuzzo1, 2 - ORCID: 0000-0003-3699-1195, Lennart Martens1,2 - ORCID: 0000- 0003-4277-658X Author Affiliation 1 Medical Biotechnology Center, VIB, Ghent, Belgium 2 Department of Biochemistry, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium Abstract The internet era, large-scale computing and storage resources, mobile devices, social media, and their high uptake among different groups of people, have all deeply changed the way knowledge is created, communicated, and further deployed. These advances have enabled a radical transformation of the practice of science, which is now more open, more global and collaborative, and closer to society than ever. Open science has therefore become an increasingly important topic. Moreover, as open science is actively pursued by several high-profile funders and institutions, it has fast become a crucial matter to all researchers. However, because this widespread interest in open science has emerged relatively recently, its definition and implementation are constantly shifting and evolving, sometimes leaving researchers in doubt about how to adopt open science, and which are the best practices to follow. This article therefore aims to be a field guide for scientists who want to perform science in the open, offering resources and tips to make open science happen in the four key areas of data, code, publications and peer-review. The Rationale for Open Science: Standing on the Shoulders of Giants One of the most widely used definitions of open science originates from Michael Nielsen [1]: “Open science is the idea that scientific knowledge of all kinds should be openly shared as early as is practical in the discovery process”.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloads Presented on the Abstract Page
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.27.063578; this version posted April 28, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. A systematic examination of preprint platforms for use in the medical and biomedical sciences setting Jamie J Kirkham1*, Naomi Penfold2, Fiona Murphy3, Isabelle Boutron4, John PA Ioannidis5, Jessica K Polka2, David Moher6,7 1Centre for Biostatistics, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom. 2ASAPbio, San Francisco, CA, USA. 3Murphy Mitchell Consulting Ltd. 4Université de Paris, Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), Inserm, Paris, F-75004 France. 5Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS) and Departments of Medicine, of Epidemiology and Population Health, of Biomedical Data Science, and of Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 6Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada. 7School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. *Corresponding Author: Professor Jamie Kirkham Centre for Biostatistics Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health The University of Manchester Jean McFarlane Building Oxford Road Manchester, M13 9PL, UK Email: [email protected] Tel: +44 (0)161 275 1135 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.27.063578; this version posted April 28, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
    [Show full text]
  • Peer Review Fails Equity Test Analysis of Submissions to Elife Reveals a Gender Gap in Whom Journals Invite to Do Reviews
    IN FOCUS NEWS Micrograph of yttrium studied images of the The technique could eventually help barium copper oxide, pseudogap. Patterns physicists to understand high-temperature a high-temperature in the images, taken superconductivity, says Allan, although he superconductor. with a scanning cautions that the paper is far from definitive tunnelling micro- and that debate about what the pseudogap is scope, often seem disordered to the human eye will continue. because of the material’s naturally chaotic and The work is an impressive, original fluctuating nature, and noise in the measure- application of machine-learning algorithms to ments. The advantage of machine learning in this type of experimental data, says Tremblay. this situation is that algorithms can learn to But the algorithm can only distinguish recognize patterns that are invisible to people. between the various hypotheses it is given, he says, rather than find entirely new patterns. PATTERN RECOGNITION During her talk, Kim said that work is under To train the algorithms, the team fed neural way to apply the technique to rapidly make networks examples of rippled patterns that sense of data from the X-ray diffraction of corresponded to different theoretical predic- quantum materials — a technique that uses the tions. Having learnt to recognize these exam- scattering of electromagnetic waves to reveal ples, each algorithm applied this learning to a mater ial’s 3D physical structure, but which real data from cuprates in the pseudogap. Over creates patterns so rich that they can take 81 iterations, the algorithms repeatedly identi- months to unravel by conventional means. In fied one modulating pattern that corresponded this case, the AI must draw out similarities and to the particle-like description of electrons, classifications itself, rather than be given pre- which dates back to the 1990s.
    [Show full text]
  • Badges for Sharing Data and Code at an Biostatistics
    F1000Research 2018, 7:90 Last updated: 09 MAR 2018 RESEARCH ARTICLE Badges for sharing data and code at Biostatistics: an observational study [version 2; referees: 2 approved] Anisa Rowhani-Farid , Adrian G. Barnett Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, 4001, Australia v2 First published: 19 Jan 2018, 7:90 (doi: 10.12688/f1000research.13477.1) Open Peer Review Latest published: 07 Mar 2018, 7:90 (doi: 10.12688/f1000research.13477.2) Referee Status: Abstract Background: The reproducibility policy at the journal Biostatistics rewards articles with badges for data and code sharing. This study investigates the Invited Referees effect of badges at increasing reproducible research. 1 2 Methods: The setting of this observational study is the Biostatistics and Statistics in Medicine (control journal) online research archives. The data consisted of 240 randomly sampled articles from 2006 to 2013 (30 articles per version 2 report report year) per journal. Data analyses included: plotting probability of data and code published sharing by article submission date, and Bayesian logistic regression modelling. 07 Mar 2018 Results: The probability of data sharing was higher at Biostatistics than the control journal but the probability of code sharing was comparable for both version 1 journals. The probability of data sharing increased by 3.9 times (95% credible published report report 19 Jan 2018 interval: 1.5 to 8.44 times, p-value probability that sharing increased: 0.998) after badges were introduced at Biostatistics. On an absolute scale, this difference was only a 7.6% increase in data sharing (95% CI: 2 to 15%, 1 Gustav Nilsonne , Stockholm p-value: 0.998).
    [Show full text]
  • Peerj – a Case Study in Improving Research Collaboration at the Journal Level
    Information Services & Use 33 (2013) 251–255 251 DOI 10.3233/ISU-130714 IOS Press PeerJ – A case study in improving research collaboration at the journal level Peter Binfield PeerJ, P.O. Box 614, Corte Madera, CA 94976, USA E-mail: PeterBinfi[email protected] Abstract. PeerJ Inc. is the Open Access publisher of PeerJ (a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal) and PeerJ PrePrints (an un-peer-reviewed or collaboratively reviewed preprint server), both serving the biological, medical and health sciences. The Editorial Criteria of PeerJ (the journal) are similar to those of PLOS ONE in that all submissions are judged only on their scientific and methodological soundness (not on subjective determinations of impact, or degree of advance). PeerJ’s peer-review process is managed by an Editorial Board of 800 and an Advisory Board of 20 (including 5 Nobel Laureates). Editor listings by subject area are at: https://peerj.com/academic-boards/subjects/ and the Advisory Board is at: https://peerj.com/academic- boards/advisors/. In the context of Understanding Research Collaboration, there are several unique aspects of the PeerJ set-up which will be of interest to readers of this special issue. Keywords: Open access, peer reviewed 1. Introduction PeerJ is based in San Francisco and London, and was launched in 2012 by Co-Founders Jason Hoyt (previously of Mendeley) and Peter Binfield (previously of PLOS ONE). PeerJ Inc. has been financed by Venture Capital investment from O’Reilly Media and OATV and Tim O’Reilly is on the Governing Board. PeerJ is a full member of CrossRef, OASPA (the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association) and COPE (the Committee on Publication Ethics).
    [Show full text]
  • Extending Arxiv. Org to Achieve Open Peer Review and Publishing
    EXTENDING ARXIV.ORG TO ACHIEVE OPEN PEER REVIEW AND PUBLISHING AXEL BOLDT Abstract. Today’s peer review process for scientific articles is unnecessarily opaque and offers few incentives to referees. Likewise, the publishing process is unnecessarily inefficient and its results are only rarely made freely available to the public. In this article we outline a comparatively simple extension of arXiv.org, an online preprint archive widely used in the mathematical and physical sciences, that addresses both of these problems. Under the proposal, editors invite referees to write public and signed reviews to be attached to the posted preprints, and then elevate selected articles to “published” status. 1. The status quo In the system of peer review that is currently used in the sciences, an editor invites one or more referees to review an article submitted to a scientific journal. Based on the referees’ recommendations, the editor will accept the article, demand modifications, or reject it. Referee reports are generally made available to the article’s author in anonymized form only and are not otherwise published. (Some journals also anonymize the article to be refereed, even though ascertaining the arXiv:1011.6590v1 [cs.OH] 23 Nov 2010 true author of a submission is usually a simple matter of using an internet search engine.) The system as described is completely opaque to outside observers. Neither the quality and timeliness of reviews, nor the standards of a journal’s editors, nor the extent of modifications made after initial review, nor the number of times an article has been rejected by other journals are publicly available.
    [Show full text]
  • Reviewers' Decision to Sign Reviews Is Related to Their Recommendation
    Reviewers’ Decision to Sign Reviews is Related to Their Recommendation Nino van Sambeek1 & Daniel Lakens1 1 Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands Surveys indicate that researchers generally have a positive attitude towards open peer review when this consists of making reviews available alongside published articles. Researchers are more negative about revealing the identity of reviewers. They worry reviewers will be less likely to express criticism if their identity is known to authors. Experiments suggest that reviewers are somewhat less likely to recommend rejection when they are told their identity will be communicated to authors, than when they will remain anonymous. One recent study revealed reviewers in five journals who voluntarily signed their reviews gave more positive recommendations than those who did not sign their reviews. We replicate and extend this finding by analyzing 12010 open reviews in PeerJ and 4188 reviews in the Royal Society Open Science where authors can voluntarily sign their reviews. These results based on behavioral data from real peer reviews across a wide range of scientific disciplines demonstrate convincingly that reviewers’ decision to sign is related to their recommendation. The proportion of signed reviews was higher for more positive recommendations, than for more negative recommendations. We also share all 23649 text-mined reviews as raw data underlying our results that can be re-used by researchers interested in peer review. Keywords: Peer Review, Open Reviews, Transparency, Open Science Word count: 3282 As technology advances, science advances. The rise of the Researchers self-report that they would be less likely to review internet has made it possible to transparently share all steps in for a journal if their identity is made public, and anecdotally the scientific process (Spellman, 2015).
    [Show full text]
  • Open Research Data and Open Peer Review: Perceptions of a Medical and Health Sciences Community in Greece
    publications Case Report Open Research Data and Open Peer Review: Perceptions of a Medical and Health Sciences Community in Greece Eirini Delikoura 1,‡ and Dimitrios Kouis 2,*,†,‡ 1 MLIS, General Hospital of Athens “Hippokration”, 11527 Athens, Greece; [email protected] 2 Department of Archival, Library & Information Studies, University of West Attica, 12243 Athens, Greece * Correspondence: [email protected] † Current address: Agiou Spyridonos Str., Aegaleo, 12243 Athens, Greece. ‡ These authors contributed equally to this work. Abstract: Recently significant initiatives have been launched for the dissemination of Open Access as part of the Open Science movement. Nevertheless, two other major pillars of Open Science such as Open Research Data (ORD) and Open Peer Review (OPR) are still in an early stage of development among the communities of researchers and stakeholders. The present study sought to unveil the perceptions of a medical and health sciences community about these issues. Through the investigation of researchers‘ attitudes, valuable conclusions can be drawn, especially in the field of medicine and health sciences, where an explosive growth of scientific publishing exists. A quantitative survey was conducted based on a structured questionnaire, with 179 valid responses. The participants in the survey agreed with the Open Peer Review principles. However, they ignored basic terms like FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) and appeared incentivized to permit the exploitation of their data. Regarding Open Peer Review (OPR), participants expressed their agreement, implying their support for a trustworthy evaluation system. Conclusively, researchers Citation: Delikoura, E.; Kouis, D. need to receive proper training for both Open Research Data principles and Open Peer Review Open Research Data and Open Peer processes which combined with a reformed evaluation system will enable them to take full advantage Review: Perceptions of a Medical and of the opportunities that arise from the new scholarly publishing and communication landscape.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards Open and Reproducible Terrorism Studies: Current Trends and Next Steps by Sandy Schumann, Isabelle Van Der Vegt, Paul Gill and Bart Schuurman
    PERSPECTIVES ON TERRORISM Volume 13, Issue 5 Towards Open and Reproducible Terrorism Studies: Current Trends and Next Steps by Sandy Schumann, Isabelle van der Vegt, Paul Gill and Bart Schuurman Abstract In recent years, the use of primary data in terrorism research has increased. In order to maximise the benefits of this trend, we want to encourage terrorism scholars to implement open science practices more systematically. This article therefore presents different avenues towards open and reproducible terrorism studies. After introducing the open science movement and advantages of open science, we report an online survey study (N = 75) that shows that terrorism researchers have favourable attitudes towards and are keen to engage in open science activities. Findings, however, also point to key challenges that might prevent the implementation of open science in terrorism studies. Survey respondents were particularly concerned about sharing sensitive data, the risk of malicious practices, publishing in low-impact open access outlets, and indicated that open science seemed mainly targeted at quantitative research. To illustrate how researchers from different backgrounds and with potential resource restrictions can adopt open science practices, we propose practical solutions to address and reflect on these barriers. Keywords: Open science, reproducibility, meta science, terrorism studies Introduction Although terrorism scholarship grew considerably in the last two decades [1], secondary data analyses and literature reviews have long dominated the field.[2] A recent review of papers published in prominent terrorism journals between 2007 and 2016, however, suggests a change in this trend. Notably, the majority of assessed work relied, at least in part, on data collected through interviews, surveys, or experiments.[3] We believe that in order to maximise the benefits of the increased use of primary data, terrorism researchers should consider implementing open science principles more systematically.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Open Peer Review? a Systematic Review [Version 1; Peer Review: 1 Approved, 3 Approved with Reservations]
    F1000Research 2017, 6:588 Last updated: 27 SEP 2021 SYSTEMATIC REVIEW What is open peer review? A systematic review [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 3 approved with reservations] Tony Ross-Hellauer Göttingen State and University Library, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, 37073, Germany v1 First published: 27 Apr 2017, 6:588 Open Peer Review https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.1 Latest published: 31 Aug 2017, 6:588 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2 Reviewer Status Invited Reviewers Abstract Background: “Open peer review” (OPR), despite being a major pillar of 1 2 3 4 Open Science, has neither a standardized definition nor an agreed schema of its features and implementations. The literature reflects version 2 this, with a myriad of overlapping and often contradictory definitions. (revision) report report report While the term is used by some to refer to peer review where the 31 Aug 2017 identities of both author and reviewer are disclosed to each other, for others it signifies systems where reviewer reports are published version 1 alongside articles. For others it signifies both of these conditions, and 27 Apr 2017 report report report report for yet others it describes systems where not only “invited experts” are able to comment. For still others, it includes a variety of combinations of these and other novel methods. 1. Richard Walker , Swiss Federal Institute Methods: Recognising the absence of a consensus view on what open of Technology in Lausanne, Geneva, peer review is, this article undertakes a systematic review of Switzerland definitions of “open peer review” or “open review”, to create a corpus of 122 definitions.
    [Show full text]
  • Preprinting the COVID-19 Pandemic
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.22.111294; this version posted September 18, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. 1 Preprinting the COVID-19 pandemic 2 3 Nicholas Fraser1,#, Liam Brierley2,#, Gautam Dey3,4, Jessica K Polka5, Máté Pálfy6, Federico Nanni7 & 4 Jonathon Alexis Coates8,9,* 5 6 7 1 Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, Düsternbrooker Weg 120, 24105 Kiel, Germany 8 2 Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Brownlow Street, Liverpool, L69 3GL, 9 UK 10 3 MRC Lab for Molecular Cell Biology, UCL, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK 11 4 Cell Biology and Biophysics Unit, European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Meyerhofstr. 1, 69117 12 Heidelberg, Germany 13 5 ASAPbio, 3739 Balboa St # 1038, San Francisco, CA 94121, USA 14 6 The Company of Biologists, Bidder Building, Station Road, Histon, Cambridge CB24 9LF, UK 15 7 The Alan Turing Institute, 96 Euston Rd, London NW1 2DB, UK 16 8 Hughes Hall College, University of Cambridge, Wollaston Rd, Cambridge, CB1 2EW, UK 17 9 William Harvey Research Institute, Charterhouse Square Barts and the London School of Medicine 18 and Dentistry Queen Mary University of London, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK 19 20 # These authors contributed equally to this work 21 * Correspondence: [email protected] 22 23 24 25 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.22.111294; this version posted September 18, 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • Ten Myths Around Open Scholarly Publishing
    Ten myths around open scholarly publishing Jonathan P. Tennant1, Harry Crane2, Tom Crick3, Jacinto Davila4, Asura Enkhbayar5, Johanna Havemann6, Bianca Kramer7, Ryan Martin8, Paola Masuzzo9, Andy Nobes10, Curt Rice11, Bárbara S. Rivera-López12, Tony Ross-Hellauer13, Susanne Sattler14, Paul Thacker15, Marc Vanholsbeeck16 1IGDORE, Leicester, United Kingdom 2Department of Statistics and Biostatistics, Rutgers University, Piscataway, United States of America 3School of Education, Swansea University, Swansea, United Kingdom 4CESIMO, Universidad de Los Andes, Bogotá, Venezuela 5Scholarly Communications Lab, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada 6IGDORE, Berlin, Germany 7Utrecht University Library, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands 8Department of Statistics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, United States of America 9IGDORE, Ghent, Belgium 10International Network for the Availability of Scientific Publications, Oxford, United Kingdom 11Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway 12Asesora Producción Científica, Santiago, Chile 13Institute for Interactive Systems and Data Science, Graz University of Technology and Know- Center GmbH, Graz, Austria 14National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom 15NA, Madrid, Spain 16Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium * Corresponding author: jon.tennant.2@ gmail.com Abstract The changing world of scholarly communication and the emergence of ‘Open Science’ or ‘Open Research’ has brought to light a number of controversial and hotly-debated topics. Yet, evidence-based rational debate is regularly drowned out by misinformed or exaggerated rhetoric, which does not benefit the evolving system of scholarly communication. The aim of this article is to provide a baseline evidence framework for ten of the most contested topics, in order to help frame and move forward discussions, practices and policies. We address preprints and scooping, the practice of copyright transfer, the function of peer review, and the legitimacy of ‘global’ databases.
    [Show full text]