Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Nous utilisons votre profil LinkedIn et vos données d’activité pour vous proposer des publicités personnalisées et pertinentes. Vous pouvez changer vos préférences de publicités à tout moment.

Open peer review : Introductuion

206 vues

Publié le

To address problems with the peer-review process, many journals have experimented with open_science_logodifferent types of peer-review models. Open peer review was adopted by several journals in order to encourage transparency in the process, and there are now a number of different ways in which this is implemented.
• Introduction by Emilie Menz

Publié dans : Sciences
  • Soyez le premier à commenter

  • Soyez le premier à aimer ceci

Open peer review : Introductuion

  1. 1. Everyone on the road to Open ScienceInternational Open Access week: October 22 – 28 Open Peer Review webinar Programme 12.00 – 12.10 Introduction to Open Peer Review - Emilie Menz (Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles, ULB) 12.10 – 12.30 Axel Cleeremans (Université libre de Bruxelles) (Open) Peer Review at Frontiers in Psychology 12.30 – 12.50 Louisa Flintoft (BioMed Central In-House Journals) Experiences of Open Peer Review at BMC 12.50 – 13.00 Questions
  2. 2. Peer review 1. Two traditional ways of peer review Single blind peer review Double blind peer review Authors’ name revealed Authors’ names concealed Reviewers’ names concealed Reviewers’ names concealed NO NAMES! In both cases, the PR reports remain
  3. 3. Peer review The obsession with being “blind” and hiding One aim : a qualitative, fair and impartial review But is it realistic? And so efficient?  Authors are quickly identified from the paper’s content  Reviewers too are identified from the review’s content  Reviewers are selected by the journal only > subversion?  No motivation for peer reviewers whose work is not valued
  4. 4. Open peer review (OPR) 1. OPR and Open Science One of the 4 pillars of Open Science “Open science is the movement to make scientific research, data and dissemination accessible to all levels of an inquiring society.” (Facilitate Open Science Training for European Research- Foster) 4 pillars: open data open code open papers (open access) open reviews 3 principles: Accountability Transparency Inclusivity
  5. 5. Open peer review (OPR) 2. Definition(s) What is “Open”? Identity of the reviewers is made public Identity of the authors is made public But also : Content of the reviews Participation (wider community) Interaction between authors and reviewers or between reviewers Pre-review manuscript Comments on the final version (Source: T. Ross-Hellauer, F1000Research, 2017)
  6. 6. Open peer review (OPR) 3. The benefits 1. Improved reviews > More accountability 2. More transparency 3. Quicker > research quicker available (pre-prints), deadlines 4. A “community oriented” approach 5. Improved papers 6. More credit given to the “reviewing process” and to reviewers
  7. 7. Open peer review (OPR) 4. Questions - Will the referees accept to make an OPR if their names are mentioned? - Is the assessment really “fair” if the reviewer knows who he is reviewing > gate open to nepotism ? (same issue as single blind) - What does happen if a young scholar reviews a paper of a confirmed one? How will he behave while writing his review if all identities are open? - Will open participation lead to more conflicts of interests or disputes?
  8. 8. Open peer review (OPR) The new standard? Let’s listen to our two guests on that topic.
  9. 9. Axel Cleeremans, Université libre de Bruxelles • F.N.R.S Director of Research at the ULB • Director of the ULB Neuroscience Institute and the group The Consciousness, Cognition and Computation (CO3) • Secretary-general for the National Committee of Psychological Science (Belgium) • 2009- Field Chief-Editor / Frontiers in Psychology - a peer-reviewed open access journal that covers all aspects of psychology. The largest in the field. • Guest Associate Editor for Frontiers in Neuroscience
  10. 10. Axel Cleeremans, Université libre de Bruxelles (Open) Peer Review at Frontiers in Psychology
  11. 11. Louisa Flintoft – BioMed Central • PhD in Genetics (King’s College, London) • 2012-2014 Nature Reviews Genetics • 2014 … - BioMed Central (BMC), 2018> • Today Executive Editor BMC In-house journals -BMC Biology, BMC Medicine, Genome Biology, Genome Medicine. Biomed Central: a pioneer of open access publishing with over 250 scientific journals.
  12. 12. Louisa Flintoft – BMC Experiences of Open Peer Review at BMC
  13. 13. Everyone on the road to Open ScienceInternational Open Access week: October 22 – 28 Open Peer Review webinar Thank you! Next webinar “How to achieve OA to publications and books”
  14. 14. Everyone on the road to Open ScienceInternational Open Access week: October 22 – 28 Open Peer Review webinar This webinar has been recorded and is available on http://openaccess.be And more input!