Annals of Library and Information Studies

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

The Scope of Open Peer Review in the Scholarly Publishing Ecosystem


Affiliations
1 Assistant Professor, University of Gour Banga, Malda., India
 

This study explores the selective corpus of existing literature on Open Peer Review (OPR) to understand and map the extent of adoption of OPR in the scholarly communication, the reflection of different aspects of human emotion embedded in the open peer review reports and authors’ response as well, the influence of OPR reports on citation status of articles, and application of Blockchain, Artificial Intelligence and similar technologies in improving the operational viability as well as acceptability of OPR among the scholarly community. The study finds the emergence of various OPR adoption policies and levels of adoption together with emerging models of scientific publishing. Clearly, there is a lack of uniform OPR adoption policy. It also highlights the association of different sets of human emotional traits with OPR reports. The experimentation with the possibility of treating preprint servers and open access repositories as a manuscript marketplace for the eventual selection of articles for open peer review and journal publication is noticed. More research on the influence of human behavioural aspects on OPR practice and the application of emergent technologies in OPR would be required before finally settling down on a stable roadmap for OPR.

Keywords

Open Peer Review, Open Identities, Open Reports, Artificial Intelligence, Blockchain, Interplanetary File System, Overlay Peer Review.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Tenorio-Fornes A, Tirador EP, Sanchez-Ruiz AA and Hassan S, Decentralizing science: Towards an interoperable open peer review ecosystem using blockchain, Information Processing & Management, 58(6)(2021). https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ipm.2021.102724

  • Guerrini M,SuaMaestà il revisore: alcuneconsiderazionisulprocesso di peer review all’internodella LIS, AIB Studi, 61(3) (2021) 585–592. https://doi.org/10.2426/aibstudi-13328

  • Csiszar A, Peer review: Troubled from the start, Nature, 532(2016) 306–308. https://doi.org/10.1038/532306a

  • Peer review and fraud, Nature, 444(2006) 971–972. https://doi.org/10.1038/444971b

  • Ware M, Peer Review: Recent Experience and Future Directions, New Review of Information Networking, 16(1)(2011) 23–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614576.2011. 566812

  • Hodonu-Wusu, J O, Open Science: A Review on Open Peer Review Literature, Library Philosophy & Practice, (2018) 1– 19.

  • Hachani S, Open Peer Review: Fast Forward for a New Science, Advances in Librarianship, 39(2015) 115–141. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0065-283020150000039012

  • Hodonu-Wusu JO, Noorhidawati A andAbrizah A, The cautious faculty: Malaysian university researchers’ awareness, experiences, and attitudes towards Open Peer Review, Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 26(3)(2021) 57–76. https://doi.org/10.22452/mjlis. vol26no3.3

  • Ford E, Defining and Characterizing Open Peer Review: A Review of the Literature, Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 44(4) (2013) 311–326. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.44-4-001

  • Jana S, A history and development of peer-review process, Annals of Library & Information Studies, 66(4)(2019) 152– 162.

  • Ross-Hellauer T, What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research, 6 (2017) 588. https://doi.org/ 10.12688/f1000research.11369.2

  • Orpen A, A Unified Definition of Open Peer Review – an Author and Reviewer in Conversation. Available at https://blog.f1000.com/2017/08/24/a-unified-definition-of-open-peer-review-an-author-and-reviewer-in-conversation/ #:~:text=TRH%3A%20The%20term%20open%20peer%20r eview%20was%20coined,really%20came%20to%20commo n%20usage%20in%20the%20mid-1990s. (Accessed on 8 April 2023).

  • JASIST@mendeley – altmetrics.org. Available at http://altmetrics.org/altmetrics12/bar-ilan/ (Accessed on 2 April 2023)

  • Tattersall A, For what it’s worth – the open peer review landscape, Online Information Review, 39(5)(2015) 649–663. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-06-2015-0182

  • Rashidi K, Sotudeh H, Mirzabeigi M andNikseresht A, Determining the informativeness of comments: a natural language study of F1000Research open peer review reports, Online Information Review, 44(7)(2020) 1327–1345. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-02-2020-0073

  • Rodriguez-Sánchez R, García J A andFdez-Valdivia J, Editorial decisions with informed and uninformed reviewers, Scientometrics, 117(1) (2018) 25–43. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11192-018-2875-7

  • Berthaud C, Capelli L, Gustedt J, Kirchner C, Loiseau K, Magron A, Medves M, Monteil A, Rivrieux G and Romary L, EPISCIENCES -- An overlay publication platform, Information Services & Use, 34(3/4) (2014) 269–277. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-140749

  • Wolfram D, Wang P, Hembree A and Park H, Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science, Scientometrics, 125(2) (2020) 1033–1051. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03488-4

  • Ford E, Opening Review in LIS Journals: A Status Report, Journal of Librarianship & Scholarly Communication, 4 (2016) 1–29. https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2148

  • Resnick P, Kuwabara K, Zeckhauser R and Friedman E, Reputation systems,Communications of the ACM, 43(12) (2000) 45–48.

  • Ford E, Opening Review in LIS Journals: A Status Report, Journal of Librarianship & Scholarly Communication, 4 (2016) 1–29. https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2148

  • Karhulahti VM andBacke HJ, Transparency of peer review: a semi-structured interview study with chief editors from social sciences and humanities, Research Integrity & Peer Review, 6(1) (2021) 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00116-4

  • Ford E, Opening Review in LIS Journals: A Status Report, Journal of Librarianship & Scholarly Communication, 4(2016) 1–29. https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2148

  • Segado-Boj F, Martín-Quevedo J and Prieto-Gutiérrez J J, Attitudes toward Open Access, Open Peer Review, and Altmetrics among Contributors to Spanish Scholarly Journals, Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 50(1)(2018) 48– 70. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.50.1.08

  • Rodríguez BB, Nicholas D, Herman E, Boukacem ZC, Watkinson A, Xu J, Abrizah A and Świgoń M, Peer review: The experience and views of early career researchers, Learned Publishing, 30(4)(2017) 269–277. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1111

  • Hodonu-Wusu JO, Noorhidawati A andAbrizah A, The cautious faculty: Malaysian university researchers’ awareness, experiences, and attitudes towards Open Peer Review, Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 26(3)(2021) 57–76. https://doi.org/10.22452/mjlis. vol26no3.3

  • Boldt A, Extending ArXiv.org to Achieve Open Peer Review and Publishing, Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 42(2)(2011) 238–242. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.42.2.238

  • Perakakis P, Ponsati A, Bernal I, Sierra C, Osman N, Mosquera-de-Arancibia C and Lorenzo E, OPRM: Challenges to Including Open Peer Review in Open Access Repositories, Code4Lib Journal, 35, (2017) 3.

  • Eysenbach G, Peer-Review 2.0: Welcome to JMIR Preprints, an Open Peer-Review Marketplace for Scholarly Manuscripts, Journal of Medical Internet Research, 17(11) (2015) 1. https://doi.org/10.2196/preprints.5337

  • Berthaud C, Capelli L, Gustedt J, Kirchner C, Loiseau K, Magron A, Medves M, Monteil A, Rivrieux G and Romary L, EPISCIENCES -- An overlay publication platform, Information Services & Use, 34(3/4)(2014) 269–277. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-140749

  • Walk P, Klein M, Van de Sompel H and Shearer K, Modelling overlay peer review processes with Linked Data Notifications, Confederation of Open Access Repositories. Available at https://www.coar-repositories.org/files/ Modelling-Overlay-Peer-Review-Processes-with-Linked-Data-Notifications-1.pdf (Accessed on 5 August 2022)

  • Activity Streams 2.0, Available at https://www.w3.org/ TR/2017/REC-activitystreams-core-20170523/#introduction (Accessed on 5 August 2022)

  • Vesnic-Alujevic L, Peer Review and Scientific Publishing in Times of Web 2.0, Publishing Research Quarterly, 30(1)(2014) 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-014-9345-8

  • Sidalak D, Purdy E, Luckett-Gatopoulos S, Murray H, Thoma B, and Chan TM, Coached peer review: Developing the next generation of authors, Academic Medicine, 92(2), (2017) 201–204. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM. 0000000000001224

  • Pöschl U, Interactive open access publishing and public peer review: The effectiveness of transparency and self-regulation in scientific quality assurance, IFLA Journal, 36(1) (2010) 40–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0340035209359573

  • Hodonu-Wusu JO, Open Science: A Review on Open Peer Review Literature, Library Philosophy & Practice, (2018) 1– 19.

  • He J, Li H W, Wang Y K, Zhang Z Q and Wang Q J, Thoughts on developing small/medium size no-till equipment for conservation agriculture in Asia: Summary of post-publication peer review comments, International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, 7(5), (2014) 139– 146. https://doi.org/10.3965/j.ijabe.20140705.16

  • Binfield P, PeerJ - more than just a publisher, Insights: The UKSG Journal, 27(1)(2014) 75–81. https://doi.org/ 10.1629/2048-7754.130

  • Rodríguez BB, Nicholas D, Herman E, Boukacem ZC, Watkinson A, Xu J, Abrizah A and Świgoń M, Peer review: The experience and views of early career researchers, Learned Publishing, 30(4)(2017) 269–277. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/leap.1111

  • Fresco-Santalla A and Hernández-Pérez T, Current and Evolving Models of Peer Review, Serials Librarian, 67(4)(2014) 373–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X. 2014.985415

  • Horbach SPJM and Halffman W, Journal Peer Review and Editorial Evaluation: Cautious Innovator or Sleepy Giant?. Minerva, 58 (2020) 139–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11024-019-09388-z

  • Matt C, Hoerndlein C and Hess T, Let the crowd be my peers? How researchers assess the prospects of social peer review, Electronic Markets, 27(2) (2017) 111–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-017-0247-4

  • Bolek C, Marolov D, Bolek M andShopovski J, Revealing Reviewers’ Identities as Part of Open Peer Review and Analysis of the Review Reports, Liber Quarterly: The Journal of European Research Libraries, 30 (1) (2020) 1–25. https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10347

  • Falk Delgado A, Garretson G and Falk Delgado A, The language of peer review reports on articles published in the BMJ, 2014–2017: an observational study, Scientometrics, 120 (3) (2019) 1225–1235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03160-6

  • Nobarany S and Booth KS, Use of politeness strategies in signed open peer review, Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 66( 5) (2015) 1048– 1064. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23229

  • Thelwall M, Allen L, Papas ER, Nyakoojo Z andWeigert V, Does the use of open, non-anonymous peer review in scholarly publishing introduce bias? Evidence from the F1000Research post-publication open peer review publishing model, Journal of Information Science, 47(6) (2021) 809– 820. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551520938678

  • Teixeira da Silva JA, Challenges to open peer review, Online Information Review, 43(2) (2019) 197–200. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-04-2018-0139

  • Ni J, Zhao Z, Shao Y, Liu S, Li W, Zhuang Y, Qu J, Cao Y, Lian N and Li J The influence of opening up peer review on the citations of journal articles, Scientometrics, 126 (12) (2021) 9393–9404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04182-9

  • Zong Q, Xie Y and Liang J, Does open peer review improve citation count? Evidence from a propensity score matching analysis of PeerJ, Scientometrics, 125 (1) (2020) 607–623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03545-y

  • Bowman MA, Saultz JW and Phillips WR, Beware of Predatory Journals: A Caution from Editors of Three Family Medicine Journals, The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, 31 (5) (2018) 671-676. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2018.05.180197

  • Memon AR, How to respond to and what to do for papers published in predatory journals?, Sci Ed., 5 (2) (2018) 146-149. doi:https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.140

  • Hatherill J, “At-risk articles”: the imperative to recover lost science, Insights: The UKSG Journal, 33 (1) (2020) 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.514

  • Gazis A, Anagnostakis G, Kourmpetis S and Katsiri E A, blockchain cloud computing middleware for academic manuscript submission, WSEAS Transactions on Business and Economics, 19 (2022) 562–572. https://doi.org/ 10.37394/23207.2022.19.51

  • Dhillon V, Blockchain based peer-review interfaces for digital medicine, Frontiers in Blockchain, 3(2020). https://doi.org/10.3389/fbloc.2020.00008

  • Sivagnanam S, Nandigam V and Lin K, Introducing the open science chain: Protecting integrity and provenance of research data. In PEARC '19: Proceedings of the practice and experience in advanced research computing on rise of the machines (learning), Chicago, July 2019, P. 1–5.

  • Duh ES, Duh A, Droftina U, Kos T, Duh U, Korošak T S et al., Publish-and-flourish: Using blockchain platform to enable cooperative scholarly communication, Publications, 7(2) (2019) 1–15.

  • Mamoshina P, Ojomoko L, Yanovich Y, Ostrovski A, Botezatu A, Prikhodko P et al., Converging blockchain and next-generation artificial intelligence technologies to decentralize and accelerate biomedical research and healthcare, Oncotarget, 9(5)(2018) 5665.

  • Mohan V, On the use of blockchain-based mechanisms to tackle academic misconduct, Research Policy, 48(9) (2019) 103805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.103805

  • Bowman JD, Predatory publishing, questionable peer review, and fraudulent conferences, American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 78(10) (2014) 176. doi: 10.5688/ajpe7810176.

  • Kochalko D, Morris C and Rollins J, Applying blockchain solutions to address research reproducibility and enable scientometric analysis. InProceedings of the 23rd international conference on science and technology indicators, Leiden, 12-14 September 2018, P. 395–403.

  • Lehner E, Hunzeker D and Ziegler JR, Funding science with science: Cryptocurrency and independent academic research funding, Ledger, 2 (2017) 65–76.

  • Tenorio-Fornés Á, Tirador EP, Sánchez-Ruiz A Aand Hassan S, Decentralizing science: Towards an interoperable open peer review ecosystem using blockchain, Information Processing & Management, 58(6) (2021) https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ipm.2021.102724

  • Faqir-Rhazoui Y, Ariza-Garzón M J, Arroyo J and Hassan S, Effect of the gas price surges on user activity in the DAOs of the ethereum blockchain,In2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Yokohama, 8-13 May, 2021, P. 1–7.

  • Thelwall M, Papas ER, Nyakoojo Z, Allen L andWeigert V, Automatically detecting open academic review praise and criticism, Online Information Review, 44(5) (2020) 1057– 1076. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-11-2019-0347

  • Cristina Sousa L, Teresa OR, Palmira S, Luís Miguel C and Ana F, Library and Faculty Partnering to Increase Open Access Publishing among Researchers. IATUL Annual Conference Proceedings, (2021) 1–15.

  • Ford E, Advancing an Open Ethos with Open Peer Review, College & Research Libraries, 78(4) (2017) 406–412. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.78.4.406

  • Hernandez-Carrion JR, End of libraries/renaissance in the “peer-to-peer sharing economy” revolution age? Librarians of the future educating for a sustainable world, Digital Library Perspectives, 38(4) (2022) 542–552. https://doi.org/10.1108/DLP-11-2021-0091

  • Mavodza J, A review of the open access concept in the UAE, New Library World, 114(5/6) (2013) 259–266. https://doi.org/10.1108/03074801311326885

  • Neville T and Crampsie C, From Journal Selection to Open Access: Practices among Academic Librarian Scholars, Portal: Libraries & the Academy, 19(4) (2019) 591–613. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2019.0037

  • Bazeley JW, Waller J and Resnis E, Engaging Faculty in Scholarly Communication Change: A Learning Community Approach, Journal of Librarianship & Scholarly Communication, 2(3) (2014) 1–13. https://doi.org/ 10.7710/2162-3309.1129

  • Larivière V, Haustein S and Mongeon P, The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era, PLoS One, 10(6) (2015) e0127502.

  • Ford E and Bean C, Open Ethos Publishing at Code4Lib Journal and in the Library with the Lead Pipe, The Library with the Lead Pipe, (2012) 1–12.

  • Ferguson C L, Open Peer Review, Serials Review, 46(4) (2020) 286–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2020.1850039

  • Burley R, Peer review in the 21st century, Information Services & Use, 37(3) (2017) 259–261. https://doi.org/ 10.3233/ISU-170850

  • Buttliere BT, Using science and psychology to improve the dissemination and evaluation of scientific work. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 8(82) (2014). https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fncom.2014.00082

  • Bosman J, De Jonge H, Kramer B and Sondervan J, Advancing open access in the Netherlands after 2020: from quantity to quality, Insights: The UKSG Journal, 34(1) (2021) 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.545


Abstract Views: 144

PDF Views: 100




  • The Scope of Open Peer Review in the Scholarly Publishing Ecosystem

Abstract Views: 144  |  PDF Views: 100

Authors

Sandip Majumdar
Assistant Professor, University of Gour Banga, Malda., India

Abstract


This study explores the selective corpus of existing literature on Open Peer Review (OPR) to understand and map the extent of adoption of OPR in the scholarly communication, the reflection of different aspects of human emotion embedded in the open peer review reports and authors’ response as well, the influence of OPR reports on citation status of articles, and application of Blockchain, Artificial Intelligence and similar technologies in improving the operational viability as well as acceptability of OPR among the scholarly community. The study finds the emergence of various OPR adoption policies and levels of adoption together with emerging models of scientific publishing. Clearly, there is a lack of uniform OPR adoption policy. It also highlights the association of different sets of human emotional traits with OPR reports. The experimentation with the possibility of treating preprint servers and open access repositories as a manuscript marketplace for the eventual selection of articles for open peer review and journal publication is noticed. More research on the influence of human behavioural aspects on OPR practice and the application of emergent technologies in OPR would be required before finally settling down on a stable roadmap for OPR.

Keywords


Open Peer Review, Open Identities, Open Reports, Artificial Intelligence, Blockchain, Interplanetary File System, Overlay Peer Review.

References