Are you looking for Open Peer Review methods & tools? Here you can find a categorisation of all OPR methods based on the functionalities & characteristics of the most popular platforms & services available today. The main four categories are:
Publishers and publishing platforms are the two major groups which introduce alternative review methods. While journals play an elemental part in scholarly communication & publishing. Explore the various open peer review methods & solutions that publishers, publishing platforms & OA journals offer.
Independent peer review platforms separate the review from the publishing process. The primary aim of the review services is to provide a user-friendly and transparent review process, which benefits both the authors and the reviewers. The review service is not affiliated with a journal or publishing house.
Repositories can also offer peer review functionalities. By turning repositories into evaluation platforms the quality control of the scholarly communication process is given back to the research communities. Explore the repository based publishing and review scenery.
Preprint related review platforms and tools facilitate a wide scientific discussion about preprint materials. The repository based dissemination and review forums can take a variety of forms ranging from repository specific discussion forums to providing peer review to content grouped as collections (overlay journals). Some platforms have a built-in commenting or peer review function on the platform, while others allow for crowd-sourced discussion on preprints in a specific field of study.
All you need to know to support researchers and young scholars understanding and implementing open peer review methods.
 |
Do you have any further questions? Please let us know via the Suggestion box! |
What Open Peer Review methods exist and how do they unfold?
The top four definitions that will help you tackle the most common misconceptions in scientific publishing.
OPR – although often narrowly defined as peer review where author/reviewer identities are disclosed to one another (see example) – is best understood as an umbrella term for a number of overlapping ways that peer review models can be adapted in line with the aims of Open Science, including making reviewer and author identities open, publishing review reports and enabling greater participation in the peer review process. The full list of traits is:
The “peer” in peer review is gaining a new meaning moving away from the notion of an accredited colleague to a participant in the review process. The peer here becomes a peer in this sense through the quality of his/her participation. Contributing to the ongoing review, the peer becomes involved in a networked knowledge exchange where not the credentials of the participants considered to be the main asset, but the expertise and trustworthiness one brings to the discussion.
Open Science is the practice of science in such a way that others can collaborate and contribute, where research data, lab notes and other research processes are freely available, under terms that enable reuse, redistribution and reproduction of the research and its underlying data and methods.
 |
Source: Created re-using data from the Innovations in Scholarly Communication project. | |
|
Please give feedback or suggestions for improvement via our Suggestion box. |
Review
- Must Reads
-- Papers
-- Surveys
-- Reports
New category - indicated by a partner. We may revise
