Results 1 to 10 of about 421,085 (302)
Guidelines for open peer review implementation [PDF]
Research Integrity and Peer Review, 2019 Open peer review (OPR) is moving into the mainstream, but it is often poorly understood and surveys of researcher attitudes show important barriers to implementation.
Tony Ross-Hellauer, Edit Görögh
doaj +6 more sources
What is open peer review? A systematic review [version 2; referees: 1 approved, 3 approved with reservations] [PDF]
F1000Research, 2017 Background: “Open peer review” (OPR), despite being a major pillar of Open Science, has neither a standardized definition nor an agreed schema of its features and implementations.
Tony Ross-Hellauer
doaj +6 more sources
Open peer review at four STEM journals: an observational overview [v2; ref status: indexed, http://f1000r.es/5n1] [PDF]
F1000Research, 2015 Open peer review, peer review where authors' and reviewers' identities are disclosed to one another, is a growing trend in scholarly publishing. Through observation of four journals in STEM disciplines, PLOS One, Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics, PeerJ ...
Emily Ford
doaj +2 more sources
Ten considerations for open peer review. [PDF]
F1000Res, 2018 Open peer review (OPR), as with other elements of open science and open research, is on the rise. It aims to bring greater transparency and participation to formal and informal peer review processes. But what is meant by `open peer review', and what advantages and disadvantages does it have over standard forms of review?
Schmidt B +3 more
europepmc +4 more sources
The Role of Publons in the Context of Open Peer Review [PDF]
Publishing Research Quarterly, 2022 Teixeira da Silva J, Nazarovets S.
europepmc +3 more sources
Open peer review: pros and cons. [PDF]
Radiol Med, 2023 Sardanelli F, Colarieti A.
europepmc +3 more sources
Genetics, 2020 PEER review can be decidedly challenging—for authors who must absorb and respond to criticism of their work, for reviewers who invest their time uncompensated (and mostly unrecognized), and for editors who must sometimes make hard decisions on their fellow scientists’ work.
Tracey A, DePellegrin, Mark, Johnston
openaire +3 more sources
Quality indicators for acute cardiovascular diseases: a scoping review
BMC Health Services Research, 2022 Background Although many quality indicator (QI) sets have been developed for acute cardiovascular diseases, a comprehensive summary is lacking. In this scoping review we aimed to summarize the available evidence on the QI sets for acute cardiovascular ...
Koshiro Kanaoka +6 more
doaj +1 more source