New models of open peer review (OPR) are emerging that open up traditional, closed processes, making them more transparent, collaborative and/or network-based. This webinar describes recent work conducted by the OpenAIRE and OpenUP projects to define models of OPR, gauge stakeholder attitudes and lay out a roadmap for future OPR implementation.
It focuses on how OPR can potentially strengthen research evaluation, describing how alternative peer review tools and methods could better shape scholarly communication and how they contribute to the strengthening Open Science agenda.
Specific issues included in the presentations are the variety of models; barriers/drivers for moving OPR mainstream; attitudes to OPR (what reviewers, authors and editors actually want); how to motivate and credit review work; technical infrastructure and platforms; and the next steps for researching the efficacy of different OPR models.

open peer review peer review Definition
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:

peer review researcher
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.

open peer review peer review Definition

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.

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