[open-science] Open Peer Review

[Ulrich Herb]

Dear Carl,



> Very interesting thread.  Sounds like open peer review can mean a lot of
> different things - perhaps better terminology is needed?

Absolutely, in an article (being published in February, unfortunately in 
German language) I tried to differentiate this phenomenon a little. To 
my mind there are several dimensions of openness in open review:
at what state of matureness a document and its review are made openly 
available? at the the end of a closed and traditional peer review? or 
immediately after submission and after surviving the desk reject (which 
also means that the review will be available immediately)? will the 
peers be anonymous or non-anonymous, are they allowed to opt? who may 
contribute comments or act as a peer (everyone, registered users, 
selected peers)? how interactive will the review be (binary or 
discursive)?

perhaps this might also be of interest in this context: repec started a 
trial with a peer review showroom: http://peerreview.repec.org/

and another thing one might think about (perhaps some does already; I am 
not quite sure about the state of the art at that point): how can we 
make reviews not only openly available but also include them into the 
oai-data? perhaps we could consider articles and reviews compound 
objects according to oai-ore or as distinct scientific publications.


best


Ulrich


> A few other
> examples for the list:
>
> Biology Direct has always practiced open peer review in which reviews
> are solicited; then having received the reviews (either positive or
> negative) the author can opt to have the paper published, can make
> changes & publish, or can withdraw the paper. Any time the paper is
> published the reviews are published with it, with the reviewers name,
> and with the author's reply to the reviews. http://www.biology-direct.com/
>
> The Nature journal EMBO has an innovative but less extreme process where
> reviews are solicited, identities are included, but the reviews are
> published (as a supplement) only if the paper is accepted. The open
> review is opt-in, with 95% opting in. Interestingly reviewers are
> encouraged to "cross-review" or comment on remarks of other reviewers.
> They have stats showing that about 10% of the time people download the
> peer-review comments when they download the paper, comparable to
> downloads of traditional supplements.
> http://www.nature.com/emboj/about/process.html
>
> Nature did an experiment with its flagship journal on unsolicited open
> peer review in 2006 in parallel with it's traditional peer review. They
> deemed it unsuccessful due to low opt-in rates among authors and few &
> lower quality reviews in the open.
> http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05535.html
>
>
> Victoria Stodden had a good discussion about this on her blog a while
> back, but something seems wrong with the site now?
>
> -Carl
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Ulrich Herb <u.herb at scinoptica.com
> <mailto:u.herb at scinoptica.com>> wrote:
>
>     Dear Graham,
>
>     sorry, but this link:
>
>         <https://plus.google.com/u/0/__107449381177524115065/posts/__5iQoPnuY5R8
>         <https://plus.google.com/u/0/107449381177524115065/posts/5iQoPnuY5R8>>
>         on
>         Google+
>
>
>     doesn't seem to work.
>
>     Perhaps this journal might be of interest for your list: atmospheric
>     chemistry & physics is very successful in using open peer review
>     http://www.atmospheric-__chemistry-and-physics.net/
>     <http://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/>
>
>     best
>
>     Ulrich
>
>
>     --
>     Ulrich Herb
>     Postfach 10 13 13
>     D-66013 Saarbrücken
>     http://www.scinoptica.com
>     +49-(0)157 84759877 <tel:%2B49-%280%29157%2084759877>
>     http://twitter.com/#!/__scinoptica <http://twitter.com/#%21/scinoptica>
>
>
>     _________________________________________________
>     open-science mailing list
>     open-science at lists.okfn.org <mailto:open-science at lists.okfn.org>
>     http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/__listinfo/open-science
>     <http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Carl Boettiger
> UC Davis
> http://www.carlboettiger.info/
>

-- 
Postfach 10 13 13
D-66013 Saarbrücken
http://www.scinoptica.com
+49-(0)157 84759877
http://twitter.com/#!/scinoptica