Authors/Initiative

Anthony Ross-Hellauer

Short Description

This is part two of a series of posts describing OpenAIRE’s work to find a community-endorsed definition of “open peer review” (OPR), its features and implementations. As described in Part One, OpenAIRE collected 122 definitions of “open review” or “open peer review” from the scientific literature. Iterative analysis of these definitions resulted in the identification of seven distinct OPR traits at work in various combinations amongst these definitions:

Authors/Initiative

Anthony Ross-Hellauer

Short Description

At present, there is neither a standardized definition of “open peer review” (OPR) nor an agreed schema of its features and implementations, which is highly problematic for discussion of its potential benefits and drawbacks. This new series of blog posts reports on work to resolve these difficulties by analysing the literature for available definitions of “open peer review” and “open review”. In all, 122 definitions have been collected and codified against a range of independent OPR traits, in order to build a coherent typology of the many different adaptations to the traditional peer review that has come to be signified by the term OPR and hence provide a unified definition.

Authors/Initiative

 This publication was supported by: Research Information Network, Society for Endocrinology, Vitae, Institute for Physics and Engineering in Medicine, The Association for Clinical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine, Elsevier, Sage, PRE (Peer Review Evaluation), Medical Research Council, The Physiological Society, Wiley, Society for General Microbiology, BioMed Central, PLOS, Taylor and Francis and Society for Applied Microbiology.

Reprinted in 2014 with support from BioMed Central, Elsevier, PLOS, Taylor and Francis, Wiley and PRE (Peer Review Evaluation).

Short Description

A guide to peer review written for early career researchers.

This is a nuts and bolts guide to peer review for early career researchers written by members of the VoYS network. Using a collection of concerns raised by their peers, the VoYS writing team set off to interview scientists, journal editors, grant bodies’ representatives, patient group workers and journalists in the UK and around the world to find out how peer review works, the challenges for peer review and how to get involved.

Link

http://senseaboutscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/peer-review-the-nuts-and-bolts.pdf