DOCSLIB.ORG

Opening Peer Review Through Narrative Inquiry (ACRL Publications in Librarianship No

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Opening Peer Review Through Narrative Inquiry (ACRL Publications in Librarianship No Portland State University PDXScholar Library Faculty Publications and Presentations University Library 7-2021 Stories of Open: Opening Peer Review through Narrative Inquiry (ACRL Publications in Librarianship No. 76) Emily Ford Portland State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/ulib_fac Part of the Scholarly Communication Commons, and the Scholarly Publishing Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Citation Details Ford, Emily. (2021). Stories of Open: Opening Peer Review Through Narrative Inquiry. CHICAGO: ASSN COLL & RESEARCH LIB. This Book is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Library Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. ACRL PUBLICATIONS IN LIBRARIANSHIP NO. 76 Stories ofOPEN Opening Peer Review through Narrative Inquiry Emily Ford Association of College and Research Libraries A division of the American Library Association Chicago, Illinois 2021 The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences–Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1992. ∞ Library of Congress Control Number: 2021940509 Copyright ©2021 by Emily Ford. This work is issued under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial license CC BY-NC 4.0. All rights reserved except those which may be granted by Sections 107 and 108 of the Copyright Revision Act of 1976. Printed in the United States of America. 24 23 22 21 20 5 4 3 2 1 Contents v Acknowledgements PART 1: ORIENTATION 3 Chapter 1—A Meta-story: The Story of Stories of Open 13 Chapter 2—Discovering Method: Narrative Inquiry PART 2: THE STORIES (THE STORY MIDDLE) 31 Chapter 3—The Elusive Norm: Peer Review in LIS 53 Chapter 4—Roles of Peer Review 91 Chapter 5—Dualities and Multiplicities in Peer Review 119 Chapter 6—Collaborative Work and Discourse Community 137 Chapter 7—Transparency of Peer-Review Process PART 3: CODA 157 Chapter 8—Storying Stories 183 Chapter 9—I Just Feel Like This Makes Sense to Me: Stuart’s Story In collaboration with Stuart Lawson 213 Chapter 10—The Next Layer of Publishing Transparency: Open Peer Review 233 Chapter 11—Crafting Future Stories of Open iii Acknowledgements his book has been a work of community. Without the ten individuals who T gave their time to converse with me, review transcripts, think deeply, and who were unafraid to be authentic and vulnerable in our interactions, this book would not exist. There wouldn’t be stories to share, and I would not have learned or grown as much as I did throughout this process. I thank you wholeheartedly. This book is ours. Additional thanks to Stuart Lawson, who was willing to make their entire interpretive story open with their identity publicly disclosed. Your dedication to and advocacy for openness is exemplary. Bob Schroeder, your excitement to read multiple drafts of each chapter kept me going. Thank you for being such a good compatriot along this journey into the research of lived experiences. My thanks to John Budd, who read and commented on the entire book draft, offering me readings and philosophical paths I would not have otherwise discovered. Additional thanks to Miriam Rigby and Sarah Ford, who read large portions of this manuscript draft and whose knowledge in their own research areas assisted my thinking. Thanks to Erin Nevius, who was willing to work with me on the open access license and agreed to make this book openly available upon publication. Daniel Mack, thank you for being an open peer review advocate, and for agreeing to have this book published in the Publications in Librarianship series as its inaugural openly reviewed manuscript. Similarly, thank you to the review- ers—Lorelei Tanji, Dr. James Kessenides, Kathy Essmiller, and the Publications in Librarianship Editorial Board—whose reviewing tasks coincided with March 2020. Your dedication to completing this task despite world events is heroic. Finally, this book belongs to all of us, any reader who takes anything away from the stories shared, or who reflects on the questions I offer. This book belongs to you, too. Funding for research conducted in support of this work was provided by a Portland State University Faculty Development Grant. v PART 1 Orientation 1 Chapter 1 A Meta-story: The Story of Stories of Open WHY THIS BOOK? “It’s just a process that hasn’t been questioned in forever, and it needs to be,” said Cheryl as we were sitting in a small study room at a branch of our local public library. The faint smell of cigarettes lingered in the study room from its previous occupant, and muffled giggles and cries of children filtered in as we spoke. I was fooling with my laptop, trying to get pertinent documents in Word to function, despite the corrupted install job that had been completed on my new grant- funded laptop. It didn’t work, and I felt flustered. Despite this setback, I was ready to learn from her. What did she have to share of her experience, and what kind of meaning would we create together in this hour and a half? We were talking about peer review. I had asked Cheryl why she wanted to participate in this project as an interviewee. When she said it, I didn’t know that it would be the title of her interpretive narrative, the document culmi- nating from our conversation, nor did I know that it would be how I opened this book. For years, since my time as a cofounder and editor at In the Library with the Lead Pipe, a peer-reviewed blog turned journal, I have been fascinated by open peer review. Our open peer-review process was something we invented as we began the journal and something that I discovered to be invaluable during that time. Yet over the years I have learned that it’s not widely accepted or understood. Perhaps people fear it because it’s unknown, or we simply have naivete—we don’t know anything different. We, academic librarians, don’t collectively know it. Few of us have experienced it, and most of us don’t understand it. Recently I was catching up on my podcast listening and was delighted to hear Radiolab’s Latif Nasser talking about how he finds stories. “I tell myself that there are 7.5 billion people on planet earth… and if you presume that one percent of those 7.5 billion people have those stories… There’s no way all those stories are getting told.… There’s… an infinity of stories all around us.”1 I truly believe that 3 4 Chapter 1 when we open ourselves to others’ experiences, we in turn reflect on our own. We have much to learn about ourselves by listening to others. That is why I’ve approached my work in stories, and that is why stories matter. This book is as much about discovering method and process as it is about sharing the stories I gathered. I hope that this book will incite our academic library community to reflect on our own experiences and imagine the possibilities of creating new and improved ones. Readers who wish to discover answers to tightly scoped research questions backed by deep dives into academic literature and evidence will be highly disappointed. This book does not do that. Rather, its intent is to share collective discoveries and explorations on a theme. It is here to share our colleagues’ stories so that we may reflect on our own and potentially reimagine future stories. OPEN PEER REVIEW While chapter 10, “The Next Layer of Publishing Transparency: Open Peer Review,” provides a closer look at open peer review, it remains pertinent to discuss it broadly in this introduction. Just what do we mean by open peer review? Although I and others have attempted to unpack this seemingly simple question, there still is no simple definition or application. Essentially, open peer review is an opening up of the peer-review process. It could mean that referees sign their reviews for authors to see, as may occur at BioMed Central journals. “Open peer review as practised by BMC, specifically refers to open identities and open content, i.e. authors know who the reviewers are and if the manuscript is accepted for publication the named reviewer reports accompany the published article.”2 I particularly love this framing of open peer review because it positions the process as a practice, and each person, each community, may practice something in a different way. And this is how it shakes out. Each implementation of open peer review, as I have observed, is different and nuanced. Some implementations allow for the publication of reviewer reports alongside publications, whereas others keep these reviewer reports opaque. Just as some view open access as a way to democratize scholarly publishing, many see open peer review as affording similar opportunities. With open peer review we can shorten time lines between manuscript submission and publica- tion, hold reviewers accountable for their work, make more apparent the hidden labor of reviewing and editing, allow for collaborative discourse between authors and reviewers, and more. Some of these arguments are deterministic, just as argu- ments regarding open access being the great democratizer of journal publishing are. In fact, anything open is highly nuanced and contextual. Ultimately, when A Meta-story 5 we discuss “open,” we must discuss the stories around it. To what aim? What are the pitfalls? What are the gains? And are we trying to simply replicate a broken system instead of reinventing it? Open peer review may also mean that authors have the opportunity to more deeply and meaningfully engage with referees.
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]
  • Nber Working Paper Series Open Access As a Crude
    NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES OPEN ACCESS AS A CRUDE SOLUTION TO A HOLD-UP PROBLEM IN THE TWO-SIDED MARKET FOR ACADEMIC JOURNALS Mark J. McCabe Christopher M. Snyder Working Paper 22220 http://www.nber.org/papers/w22220 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 May 2016 We thank Mark Armstrong, Sumit Joshi, Simon Loertscher, David Malueg, Lars Stole, and seminar participants at American University, Dartmouth College, George Washington University, MIT, New York University, Ruhr-Universitaet Bochum, Santa Clara University, Tulane University, the University of Chicago, the University of Goettingen, Yale University, the Cologne Summit on Open Access Publishing, the Emory University Symposium on Open Access and Digital Preservation, the International Industrial Organization Conference (Chicago), and the NBER Workshop on Scholarly Communication, Open Science, and Its Impact (Cambridge, MA) for helpful comments. This paper grew out of an earlier project, "The Economics of Open-Access Journals," conducted under grants from the Open Society Institute, NET Institute, and Stigler Center for Study of Economy and State at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business. Funding for work on this paper was provided by the Sloan Foundation, grant #G-2012-10-20, which the authors gratefully acknowledge. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications. © 2016 by Mark J.
    [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]
  • ACRL Publications in Librarianship Open Peer Review Code of Conduct
    ACRL Publications in Librarianship Open Peer Review Monograph title: Stories of Open: Opening Peer Review through Narrative Inquiry Author: Emily Ford Review close: Monday, March 23, 2020 Google document available at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KFiAhP9hp1hQpWEEdQ4gts4tEaD4uu5G6Yt5YIY5pMk/ edit# Code of Conduct Reviewers agree to: ● provide objective reviews that deliver constructive criticism in a positive and professional manner ● support their recommendations with clearly developed examples or arguments ● focus on substantive comments and suggestions on the content; the book will be professionally copyedited and designed, so formatting, typos, and other grammatical errors will be addressed later in the production process ● look for the following as they review: ○ significance of topic ○ conceptually/theoretically grounded ○ appropriate methodology/research design ○ coherent discussion ○ valid conclusions ○ advancement of knowledge ○ clear, articulate, and well written ● value diversity and inclusion in the review process ● meet all deadlines, or notify the Publications in Librarianship Editor as soon as possible if unable to meet deadlines ● maintain confidentiality of other reviewers’ comments ● recuse themselves from reviewing manuscripts for which they lack expertise, have any undisclosed conflicts of interest, or are unable to meet all deadlines ● consult with the Publications in Librarianship Editor if they have any questions: ○ Daniel Mack, Associate Dean, Collection Strategies and Services, University of Maryland ○ email: [email protected] ○ voice: 301.405.9264 Identifying and Contact Information Please send your name, position, email, and institutional affiliation (if any) with your comments to the Publications in Librarianship editor: Daniel Mack, Associate Dean, Collection Strategies and Services, University of Maryland email: [email protected] voice: 301.405.9264. Stories of Open: Opening Peer Review through Narrative Inquiry Emily Ford Table of Contents Part 1 - Orientation Ch.
    [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]
  • Converting Scholarly Journals to Open Access: a Review of Approaches and Experiences David J
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc. Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln 2016 Converting Scholarly Journals to Open Access: A Review of Approaches and Experiences David J. Solomon Michigan State University Mikael Laakso Hanken School of Economics Bo-Christer Björk Hanken School of Economics Peter Suber editor Harvard University Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons, Scholarly Communication Commons, and the Scholarly Publishing Commons Solomon, David J.; Laakso, Mikael; Björk, Bo-Christer; and Suber, Peter editor, "Converting Scholarly Journals to Open Access: A Review of Approaches and Experiences" (2016). Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc.. 27. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom/27 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc. by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Converting Scholarly Journals to Open Access: A Review of Approaches and Experiences By David J. Solomon, Mikael Laakso, and Bo-Christer Björk With interpolated comments from the public and a panel of experts Edited by Peter Suber Published by the Harvard Library August 2016 This entire report, including the main text by David Solomon, Bo-Christer Björk, and Mikael Laakso, the preface by Peter Suber, and the comments by multiple authors is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 1 Preface Subscription journals have been converting or “flipping” to open access (OA) for about as long as OA has been an option.
    [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]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]