» Articles » PMID: 30858990

Guidelines for Open Peer Review Implementation

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Date 2019 Mar 13
PMID 30858990
Citations 15
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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. As more journals move to implement and experiment with the myriad of innovations covered by this term, there is a clear need for best practice guidelines to guide implementation. This brief article aims to address this knowledge gap, reporting work based on an interactive stakeholder workshop to create best-practice guidelines for editors and journals who wish to transition to OPR. Although the advice is aimed mainly at editors and publishers of scientific journals, since this is the area in which OPR is at its most mature, many of the principles may also be applicable for the implementation of OPR in other areas (e.g., books, conference submissions).

Citing Articles

The Peer Review Process: Past, Present, and Future.

Drozdz J, Ladomery M Br J Biomed Sci. 2024; 81:12054.

PMID: 38952614 PMC: 11215012. DOI: 10.3389/bjbs.2024.12054.


Recognizing the value of meta-research and making it easier to find.

Stevens E, Laynor G J Med Libr Assoc. 2023; 111(4):839-843.

PMID: 37928126 PMC: 10621717. DOI: 10.5195/jmla.2023.1758.


For a paradigm shift in peer review, bold steps need to be taken.

Teixeira da Silva J Radiol Med. 2023; 128(7):886-887.

PMID: 37285066 DOI: 10.1007/s11547-023-01656-z.


Quality peer review is mandatory for scientific journals: ethical constraints, computers, and progress of communication with the reviewers of International Orthopaedics.

Mavrogenis A, Scarlat M Int Orthop. 2023; 47(3):605-609.

PMID: 36749373 DOI: 10.1007/s00264-023-05715-y.


Seven steps to enhance Open Science practices in animal science.

Munoz-Tamayo R, Nielsen B, Gagaoua M, Gondret F, Krause E, Morgavi D PNAS Nexus. 2023; 1(3):pgac106.

PMID: 36741429 PMC: 9896936. DOI: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac106.


References
1.
Poschl U . Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation. Front Comput Neurosci. 2012; 6:33. PMC: 3389610. DOI: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00033. View

2.
Walker R, Rocha da Silva P . Emerging trends in peer review-a survey. Front Neurosci. 2015; 9:169. PMC: 4444765. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2015.00169. View

3.
Ross-Hellauer T, Deppe A, Schmidt B . Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers. PLoS One. 2017; 12(12):e0189311. PMC: 5728564. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189311. View

4.
Budden A, Tregenza T, Aarssen L, Koricheva J, Leimu R, Lortie C . Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends Ecol Evol. 2007; 23(1):4-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.008. View

5.
Herron D . Is expert peer review obsolete? A model suggests that post-publication reader review may exceed the accuracy of traditional peer review. Surg Endosc. 2012; 26(8):2275-80. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-012-2171-1. View