Guidelines for open peer review implementation

Ross-Hellauer, Tony; Görögh, Edit

doi:10.1186/s41073-019-0063-9

Cited by 49 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Inclusiveness via Gamification. As a final step we propose that all the community is involved in the process of peer reviewing by abolishing the editorial selection process through ‘open participation’ (or ‘open interaction’, ‘open platform’ [ 22 , 23 ]). In this way, the pool of reviewers is enriched and allows younger researchers to get the appropriate training through interactive feedback.…”

Section: System Conceptmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ants-Review: A Privacy-Oriented Protocol for Incentivized Open Peer Reviews on Ethereum

Trovó

Massari

2021

Euro-Par 2020: Parallel Processing Workshops

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peer review is a necessary and essential quality control step for scientific publications but lacks proper incentives. Indeed, the process, which is very costly in terms of time and intellectual investment, not only is not remunerated by the journals but it is also not openly recognized by the academic community as a relevant scientific output for a researcher. Therefore, scientific dissemination is affected in timeliness, quality and fairness. Here, to solve this issue, we propose a blockchain-based incentive system that rewards scientists for peer reviewing other scientists’ work and that builds up trust and reputation. We designed a privacy-oriented protocol of smart contracts called Ants-Review that allows authors to issue a bounty for open anonymous peer reviews on Ethereum. If requirements are met, peer reviews will be accepted and paid by the approver proportionally to their assessed quality. To promote ethical behaviour and inclusiveness the system implements a gamified mechanism that allows the whole community to evaluate the peer reviews and vote for the best ones.

show abstract

Section: System Conceptmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ants-Review: A Privacy-Oriented Protocol for Incentivized Open Peer Reviews on Ethereum

Trovó

Massari

2021

Euro-Par 2020: Parallel Processing Workshops

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…20 A comparative assessment of these peer review innovations in relation to open access publishing features is shown in In double-blind peer review, the reviewers and authors are anonymous. 10,11 This achieves equality in gender/ethnicity, 5,21 and reduces bias, 5 but it may lessen conflicts of interest awareness. 9 In triple-blind peer review, the authors and their affiliations are kept hidden from the editor.…”

Section: Peer Review Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…7,11 This blinding therefore runs counter to open peer review. 11 For blinding in private open peer review, the names of the authors and reviewers are revealed upon their consent.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Innovative Strategies for Peer Review

Barroga

2020

J Korean Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peer review is a crucial part of research and publishing. However, it remains imperfect and suffers from bias, lack of transparency, and professional jealousy. It is also overburdened by an increasing quantity of complex papers against the stagnant pool of reviewers, causing delays in peer review. Additionally, many medical, nursing, and healthcare educators, peer reviewers, and authors may not be completely familiar with the current changes in peer review. Moreover, reviewer education and training have unfortunately remained lacking. This is especially crucial since current initiatives to improve the review process are now influenced by factors other than academic needs. Thus, increasing attention has recently focused on ways of streamlining the peer review process and implementing alternative peer-review methods using new technologies and open access models. This article aims to give an overview of the innovative strategies for peer review and to consider perspectives that may be helpful in introducing changes to peer review. Critical assessments of peer review innovations and incentives based on past and present experiences are indispensable. A theoretical appraisal must be balanced by a realistic appraisal of the ethical roles of all stakeholders in enhancing the peer review process. As the peer review system is far from being perfect, identifying and developing core competencies among reviewers, continuing education of researchers, reviewer education and training, and professional engagement of the scientific community in various disciplines may help bridge gaps in an imperfect but indispensable peer review system.

show abstract

“…It is therefore not surprising that authors have looked for alternative ways to publish their scientific data [40][41][42][43][44][45]. One possibility, of course, is the method of self-publishing (SP) by simply placing manuscripts on the website of the institute or university.…”

Section: Alternative Ways Of Publishingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Pioneering Role of Sci in Post Publication Public Peer Review (P4R)

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientists observe, discover, justify and eventually share their findings with the scientific community. Dissemination is an integral aspect of scientific discovery, since discoveries which go unnoticed have no or little impact on science. Today, peer review is part of this process of scientific dissemination as it contributes proactively to the quality of a scientific article. As the numbers of scientific journals and scientific articles published therein are increasing steadily, processes such as the single-blind or double-blind peer review are facing a near collapse situation. In fact, these traditional forms of reviewing have reached their limits and, because of this, are also increasingly considered as unfair, sloppy, superficial and even biased. In this manuscript, we propose forms of post-publication public peer review (P4R) as valuable alternatives to the traditional blind peer review system. We describe how the journal Sci has explored such an approach and provide first empirical evidence of the benefits and also challenges, such a P4R approach faces.

show abstract

Guidelines for open peer review implementation

Cited by 49 publications

References 18 publications

Ants-Review: A Privacy-Oriented Protocol for Incentivized Open Peer Reviews on Ethereum

Ants-Review: A Privacy-Oriented Protocol for Incentivized Open Peer Reviews on Ethereum

Innovative Strategies for Peer Review

The Pioneering Role of Sci in Post Publication Public Peer Review (P4R)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About