• Road With Logo

    OpenUP Hub goes beta!

  • OpenUP Logo Mockup

    Opening UP the research lifecycle

  • Header OpenScience 700x320

    Explore Responsible Research & Innovation

  • Library S 1666702 640
    Are you a researcher at an early stage?
    Find out tips and tricks on where to start

Review
Assess
Disseminate

OpenUP hub

OpenUP Hub is an open, dynamic and collaborative knowledge environment that systematically captures, organizes and categorizes research outcomes, best practices, tools and guidelines. Explore the given material about opening up the review-dissemination-assessment phases of the research lifecycle and practices to support the transition to a more open and gender sensitive research environment.
 

I am a...

Young Scholar

Young Scholar

and I want to understand alternative reviewing methods
Researcher

Researcher

and I seek for novel ways to disseminate my work
Project manager

Project manager

and I am interested in analyzing the impact of a scientific work and correlate them to dissemination channels
Funder

Funder

and I want to sense the community pulse to better stream the funding
Policy maker

Policy maker

and I want to listen to the needs of the scientific community
Open Science advocate

Open Science advocate

and I want to advance Open Science
Publisher

Publisher

and I want to identify emerging ideas and researchers to publish their work
Librarian

Librarian

and I want to learn more about Altmetrics
 


Community - Read, write & connect!

OpenUP Hub is the meeting point where new ideas and beliefs are expressed.

 

Blog

Blog

Are you an Open Science advocate? Join the community and share your ideas!
Calendar

Calendar

Find the events that interest you.
Observatory

Observatory

Sense the community pulse!
Members

Members

Meet & connect with other community members!
OpenScience Q&A

OpenScience Q&A

Have a question on Open Science? Join the OpenScience Q&A.

  

>

Gender

Gender is one of the key components of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) as well as the European Commission’s overall approach to promoting a culture of openly sharing information among researchers, innovative industries and citizens.

 

 

  • Home
Authors

Ulrich Pöschl

Short Description

The traditional forms of scientific publishing and peer review do not live up to all demands of efficient communication and quality assurance in today’s highly diverse and rapidly evolving world of science.

Tags: open peer review peer review open access scholarly publishing paper

Read more: Multi-stage open peer review: scientific...

Authors

Emily Ford

Short Description

Changes in scholarly publishing have resulted in a move toward openness. To this end, new, open models of peer review are emerging. While the scholarly literature has examined and discussed open peer review, no established definition of it exists, nor are there uniform implementations of open peer review processes. This article examines the literature discussing open peer review, identifies common open peer review definitions, and describes eight common characteristics of open peer review: signed review, disclosed review, editor-mediated review, transparent review, crowdsourced review, prepublication review, synchronous review, and post-publication review. This article further discusses benefits and challenges to the scholarly publishing community posed by open peer review, and concludes that open peer review can and should exist within the current scholarly publishing paradigm.

Tags: open peer review peer review scholarly communication literature review paper

Read more: Defining and Characterizing Open Peer Review: A...

Authors

Mario Biagioli

Short Description

Together with tenure, peer review is probably the most distinctive feature of the modern academic system. Peer review, we are told, sets academia apart from all other professions by construing value through peer judgment, not market dynamics. Given the remarkable epistemological and symbolic burden placed on peer review, it is surprising to find that so little research has analyzed it either empirically (in its actual daily practices) or philosophically (as one of the conditions of possibility of academic knowledge). While academics discuss it quite frequently, they do not frame it as an intellectual subject. Instead, they either confine it to private conversations or treat it as one of the practical aspects of the profession. Typically, peer review comes up in the context of personal complaints about the perceived incompetence (or other unflattering traits) of editors and referees. But when the dust settles, it is not uncommon to hear appreciative remarks for the referees’ time-consuming and unpaid contributions, or to see them thanked in the acknowledgments.

Tags: peer review paper

Read more: From Book Censorship to Academic Peer Review