[open-science] Open Peer Review

Mon Dec 12 08:49:14 UTC 2011

On 12/11/11 11:34 PM, Carl Boettiger wrote:
> Very interesting thread.  Sounds like open peer review can mean a lot 
> of different things - perhaps better terminology is needed?  A few 
> other examples for the list:

Indeed.

And to add another example illustrating this:

What "Frontiers" http://www.frontiersin.org/ calls "Open Review"
just means that the identity of the reviewer(s) is disclosed after
acceptance (see, e.g., 
http://www.frontiersin.org/neuroinformatics/reviewguidelines)

Raphael

>
> 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>
>         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/
>
>     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
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Carl Boettiger
> UC Davis
> http://www.carlboettiger.info/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20111212/0181c64b/attachment-0001.html>