Cargando…
Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers
Open peer review (OPR) is a cornerstone of the emergent Open Science agenda. Yet to date no large-scale survey of attitudes towards OPR amongst academic editors, authors, reviewers and publishers has been undertaken. This paper presents the findings of an online survey, conducted for the OpenAIRE202...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5728564/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29236721 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189311 |
_version_ | 1783286046855790592 |
---|---|
author | Ross-Hellauer, Tony Deppe, Arvid Schmidt, Birgit |
author_facet | Ross-Hellauer, Tony Deppe, Arvid Schmidt, Birgit |
author_sort | Ross-Hellauer, Tony |
collection | PubMed |
description | Open peer review (OPR) is a cornerstone of the emergent Open Science agenda. Yet to date no large-scale survey of attitudes towards OPR amongst academic editors, authors, reviewers and publishers has been undertaken. This paper presents the findings of an online survey, conducted for the OpenAIRE2020 project during September and October 2016, that sought to bridge this information gap in order to aid the development of appropriate OPR approaches by providing evidence about attitudes towards and levels of experience with OPR. The results of this cross-disciplinary survey, which received 3,062 full responses, show the majority (60.3%) of respondents to be believe that OPR as a general concept should be mainstream scholarly practice (although attitudes to individual traits varied, and open identities peer review was not generally favoured). Respondents were also in favour of other areas of Open Science, like Open Access (88.2%) and Open Data (80.3%). Among respondents we observed high levels of experience with OPR, with three out of four (76.2%) reporting having taken part in an OPR process as author, reviewer or editor. There were also high levels of support for most of the traits of OPR, particularly open interaction, open reports and final-version commenting. Respondents were against opening reviewer identities to authors, however, with more than half believing it would make peer review worse. Overall satisfaction with the peer review system used by scholarly journals seems to strongly vary across disciplines. Taken together, these findings are very encouraging for OPR’s prospects for moving mainstream but indicate that due care must be taken to avoid a “one-size fits all” solution and to tailor such systems to differing (especially disciplinary) contexts. OPR is an evolving phenomenon and hence future studies are to be encouraged, especially to further explore differences between disciplines and monitor the evolution of attitudes. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5728564 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-57285642017-12-22 Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers Ross-Hellauer, Tony Deppe, Arvid Schmidt, Birgit PLoS One Research Article Open peer review (OPR) is a cornerstone of the emergent Open Science agenda. Yet to date no large-scale survey of attitudes towards OPR amongst academic editors, authors, reviewers and publishers has been undertaken. This paper presents the findings of an online survey, conducted for the OpenAIRE2020 project during September and October 2016, that sought to bridge this information gap in order to aid the development of appropriate OPR approaches by providing evidence about attitudes towards and levels of experience with OPR. The results of this cross-disciplinary survey, which received 3,062 full responses, show the majority (60.3%) of respondents to be believe that OPR as a general concept should be mainstream scholarly practice (although attitudes to individual traits varied, and open identities peer review was not generally favoured). Respondents were also in favour of other areas of Open Science, like Open Access (88.2%) and Open Data (80.3%). Among respondents we observed high levels of experience with OPR, with three out of four (76.2%) reporting having taken part in an OPR process as author, reviewer or editor. There were also high levels of support for most of the traits of OPR, particularly open interaction, open reports and final-version commenting. Respondents were against opening reviewer identities to authors, however, with more than half believing it would make peer review worse. Overall satisfaction with the peer review system used by scholarly journals seems to strongly vary across disciplines. Taken together, these findings are very encouraging for OPR’s prospects for moving mainstream but indicate that due care must be taken to avoid a “one-size fits all” solution and to tailor such systems to differing (especially disciplinary) contexts. OPR is an evolving phenomenon and hence future studies are to be encouraged, especially to further explore differences between disciplines and monitor the evolution of attitudes. Public Library of Science 2017-12-13 /pmc/articles/PMC5728564/ /pubmed/29236721 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189311 Text en © 2017 Ross-Hellauer et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Ross-Hellauer, Tony Deppe, Arvid Schmidt, Birgit Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers |
title | Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers |
title_full | Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers |
title_fullStr | Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers |
title_full_unstemmed | Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers |
title_short | Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers |
title_sort | survey on open peer review: attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5728564/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29236721 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189311 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT rosshellauertony surveyonopenpeerreviewattitudesandexperienceamongsteditorsauthorsandreviewers AT deppearvid surveyonopenpeerreviewattitudesandexperienceamongsteditorsauthorsandreviewers AT schmidtbirgit surveyonopenpeerreviewattitudesandexperienceamongsteditorsauthorsandreviewers |