• Policy Recommendations

    Five recommendations to open up science

  • OpenUP Logo Mockup

    Opening UP the research lifecycle

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

  • Final conference
    OpenUP final conference report - Day 1
    ‘Opening Up the Research Life Cycle: Innovative Methods for Open Science’

  • Header OpenScience 700x320

    Explore Responsible Research & Innovation

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 Ask Open Science forum.

  

>

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/Initiatives

Diane Harley, Sophia Krzys Acord, Sarah Earl-Novell, Shannon Lawrence, C. Judson King

Copyright:  Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkley

Short Description

Since 2005, the Center for Studies in Higher Education (CSHE), has been conducting research to understand the needs and practices of faculty for in-progress scholarly communication (i.e., forms of communication employed as research is being executed) as well as archival publication. This report brings together the responses of 160 interviewees across 45, mostly elite, research institutions in seven selected academic fields: archaeology, astrophysics, biology, economics, history, music, and political science. The overview document summarizes the main practices explored across all seven disciplines: tenure and promotion, dissemination, sharing, collaboration, resource creation and consumption, and public engagement. In this report, readers can search various topics within and across case studies. The report identifies five key topics, addressed in detail in the case studies, that require real attention:

Tags: open peer review peer review scholarly communication open access report

Read more: Assessing the future landscape of scholarly...

Authors/Initiative

Council of Science Editors

Short Description

Peer review is the principal mechanism by which the quality of research is judged. Most funding decisions in science and the academic advancement of scientists are based on peer-reviewed publications. Because the number of scientific articles published each year continues to grow, the quality of the peer-review process and the quality of the editorial board are cited as primary influences on a journal’s reputation, impact factor, and standing in the field. Scientific journals publishing peer-reviewed articles depend heavily on the scientific referees or reviewers who typically volunteer their time and expertise. In most circumstances, at least 2 reviewers are solicited to evaluate a manuscript; some journals request 3 reviews. This may be required in situations where review by a statistician is needed. In cases of controversy or strong disagreement regarding the merits of the work, an additional review may also be solicited or one of the journal’s editors might give an evaluation. More than 3 reviewers are sometimes used if reviewers from several fields are needed to obtain a thorough evaluation of a paper. In addition to fairness in judgment and expertise in the field, peer reviewers have significant responsibilities toward authors, editors, and readers.

Link

 http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/white-paper-on-publication-ethics/2-3-reviewer-roles-and-responsibilities/

Tags: open peer review peer review report

Authors/Initiative

British Academy

Short Description

Peer review is the practice by which the worth of research is evaluated by those with demonstrated competence to make a judgment. It is the traditional means by which research quality is guaranteed in academic studies. The British Academy was concerned that the role peer review plays in underpinning the success of the UK research enterprise in the humanities and social sciences needed to be better understood by policy-makers.

Link

http://www.britac.ac.uk/sites/default/files/23-weale.pdf

Tags: peer review metrics report

Authors/Initiative

The Association of Learned & Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP), European Association of Science Editors (EASE)

Short Description

The aim of this combined ALPSP/EASE survey was to achieve a greater understanding of the peer review process in a variety of disciplines and to provide a set of agreed guidelines. The survey was exclusively online and was made available on the ALPSP website in October 2000. The questionnaire was highlighted in the news section of the home page and remained there for just over one month, during which 200 responses were collected and considerable interest was generated. The following report shows the results of the survey and also includes comments received by email during the time that the questionnaire was displayed

Link

https://www.alpsp.org/write/mediauploads/current_practice_in_peer_review.pdf

Tags: open peer review peer review survey

Authors/Initiative

Bev Acreman, Peter Berkery, Caroline Black, Chis Bourg, Becky Brasington Clark, Angela Cochran, Kevin Davies, Rachel Dresbeck, Catriona MacCallum, Paul Peters, Bobby Schnabel, Francisco Valdés Ugalde

Short Description

The  Open Scholarship Initiative 2016 (OSI2016) Peer Review workgroup focused on peer review in the context of open scholar­ship. The group agreed that greater openness and transparency would improve accounta­bility, minimize bias, and encourage collaboration, but did not underestimate the challenges of openness, nor the variation in readiness across disciplines and publishing mod­els. The group recommended facilitation of peer review outside the traditional publication process—for example, in the context of preprint servers and after publication—with incen­tives for broad participation. These incentives need to include a cultural shift in recognition of peer review as a valid activity contributing to career progression.

Tags: peer review traditional peer review open scholarship SWOT report

Read more: Report from the Peer Review Workgroup

Unless otherwise indicated, content hosted on OpenUP Hub is licensed under an Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).