Results 11 to 20 of about 421,085 (302)
Open science cannot succeed without open peer review
Liber Quarterly: The Journal of European Research Libraries, 2021 Open Science principles have been a critical driver for change in scholarly communication. Opening up research publications has led to encouraging rates of growth of Open Access but it has now become evident that true and system-wide change will only ...
Giannis Tsakonas
doaj +1 more source
The Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative: incentivizing open research practices through peer review [PDF]
Royal Society Open Science, 2016 Openness is one of the central values of science. Open scientific practices such as sharing data, materials and analysis scripts alongside published articles have many benefits, including easier replication and extension studies, increased availability of data for theory-building and meta-analysis, and increased possibility of review and collaboration ...
Richard D. Morey +12 more
openaire +13 more sources
Innovations in scholarly peer review at Nature Publishing Group and Palgrave Macmillan
Insights: The UKSG Journal, 2015 The peer-review system is one of the cornerstones of quality, integrity and reproducibility in research, and its existence has enabled the scholarly publishing system to function for hundreds of years.
Amy Bourke-Waite
doaj +1 more source
Development Trends of International Open Peer Review Platforms and Recommendations for China [PDF]
Nongye tushu qingbao xuebao[Purpose/Significance] This study systematically analyzes the basic models and development trends of international open peer review platforms, with the aim of exploring the insights these platforms provide for academic communication and research ...
ZHANG Zhixiong, WANG Yuju, ZHAO Yang
doaj +1 more source
Open peer review: some considerations on the selection and management of reviewers
JLIS.it, 2022 Open peer review (OPR) is a type of review that has long since made space alongside the more well-known single-blind and double-blind peer reviews. Despite this, we still do not have a shared definition by the scientific community and publishers.
Andrea Capaccioni
doaj +1 more source
Peer review and ‘openness’ [PDF]
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2009 The Editor states that publishing peer reviewers’ names is ‘a bold step in improving the transparency’ of the peer-review process, and is important in achieving a more open process.1 While one may respect Dr Abbassi's opinion in this regard, it appears to be an opinion held without objective supporting data.
openaire +2 more sources
Liber Quarterly: The Journal of European Research Libraries, 2010 The traditional forms of scientific publishing and peer review do not live up to the demands of efficient communication and quality assurance in today's highly diverse and rapidly evolving world of science.
Ulrich Poschl
doaj +1 more source
Revealing Reviewers’ Identities as Part of Open Peer Review and Analysis of the Review Reports
Liber Quarterly: The Journal of European Research Libraries, 2020 This research article is aimed at comparing review reports, in which the identity of the reviewers is revealed to the authors of the papers, with those where the reviewers decided to remain anonymous.
Cezary Bolek +3 more
doaj +1 more source
The Effect of Open Peer Review on Reviewers’ Behavior: a Scope Review [PDF]
Iranian Journal of Information Processing & Management, 2023 The role of article publishing in academic and professional promotion is unprecedentedly increasing worldwide and researchers demand more transparency in the process of reviewing articles.
Nadia Hadji-Azizi
doaj +1 more source
Open up: a survey on open and non-anonymized peer reviewing
Research Integrity and Peer Review, 2020 Background Our aim is to highlight the benefits and limitations of open and non-anonymized peer review. Our argument is based on the literature and on responses to a survey on the reviewing process of alt.chi, a more or less open review track within the ...
Lonni Besançon +4 more
doaj +1 more source