Michael Markie talks about the benefits of Open Peer Review | OSFair2017 Workshop Workshop title: Peer review at the crossroads Workshop overview: The workshop builds on the results of the OpenUp landscape scan and the OpenAIRE report on open peer review. The workshop has multiple purposes including (1) assessing existing and evolving methods and functions of alternative peer review mechanisms, (2) breaking down peer review into the basic processes to identify the benefits and challenges, and (3) identifying questions and issues that need further investigation. Group discussions will also touch upon issues such as the sustainability, long-term availability of alternative review tools, and their uptake by researchers, and the incorporation of these methods into institutional, national, funders’ and publishers’ policies. OpenUP and OpenAIRE are dedicated to engage with different (disciplinary, inter-disciplinary) research communities from the social sciences, life sciences, energy, arts and humanities to identify the requirements from the emerging trends as posed by Open Science and e-infrastructural interconnected environments. Both projects aim at developing a sustainable framework that is relevant for and responsive to the Open Science needs. DAY 3 - PARALLEL SESSION 6

1. 8th September 2017
Michael Markie
@mmmarksman
Publisher, F1000 Platforms
Peer Review – time for credit,
reward and recognition

2. “In an ideal world peer review should be an
open supportive and collaborative process
by which a group of independent scientists
assess the quality of a body of research”
Watson M. Opiniomics. Why anonymous peer review is bad for science.
https://biomickwatson.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/why-anonymous-peer-review-is-
bad-for-science/.
My favourite peer-review definition

3. It’s a human endeavour…
Peer review is an art rather than a science making it
susceptible to flaws (and politics)
• Disorderly process
• Driven by subjectivity
• Fallible to mistakes
• Open to abuse
Image credit: Belle Mellor: http://bellemellor.com/.

4. Open or Closed?
• Shows the reviewer’s informed opinion of the work
• Demonstrates experience as a reviewer
• Reviewer comments put article in context
• Reduces bias among reviewers
• More constructive reviews
• Can receive credit for the work involved in conducting the review
• Retribution or revenge from authors who receive a negative review
• Can have career repercussions for younger students
• Facilitates a “Club” mentality
• Don’t want to be negative towards colleagues
We need to move into a new era of fairer and more
efficient peer review.
FOR OPEN
AGAINST OPEN

5. Open is the way forward for credit
But… its hard to credit something you can’t see!
Open is more ethical, without cutting down on quality. Transparency allows for an
independent judgment of the whole process.

6. Peer review is a research output
Integral part of the scientific
endeavour
Gold-standard for verification
Improves quality and upholds
standards
Allows others to build upon
the knowledge base

7. Publons –documenting what you’ve done

8. Open = further credit opportunities
• Adding name and affiliation means reviews can be attributed
• Publishing the review means it can be given a permanent identifier
• Publishing a review enables usage metrics to be added

9. Open = further credit opportunities

10. Should reviewers get paid?
Time is money after all…?

11. Open peer review oath
Principle 1: I will sign my name to my review
Principle 2: I will review with integrity
Principle 3: I will treat the review as a discourse with you; in particular, I will
provide constructive criticism
Principle 4: I will be an ambassador for the practice of open science
Open peer review – enhance open science
https://f1000research.com/articles/3-271/v2

12. If reviewing can be measured…
• Could we be rewarded for it in researcher assessment?
• Could it be acknowledged on tenure and promotion
committees?
• Could it complement the growing area of individual
research metrics?
• Could it decrease reviewer burden?

13. Questions and discussion