OpenUP - innovative methods of peer review

124 Aufrufe

Veröffentlicht am

Edit Gorogh of the University of Goettingen describes OpenUP's (http://openup-h2020.eu/) work to scope innovative methods in peer review and create a tool-kit to help all stakeholders orient themselves with this qucik-changing landscape.

For Peer Review Week 2017, OpenAIRE and OpenUP hosted a webinar entitled "Open Peer Review: Models, Attitudes and Next Steps – a webinar from OpenUP and OpenAIRE". Recordings shortly available: https://www.openaire.eu/open-peer-review-models-attitudes-and-next-steps-a-webinar-from-openup-and-openaire

Time: 12.00 CEST, Friday 15 September 2017

Webinar overview: New models of open peer review (OPR) are emerging that open up traditional, closed processes, making them more transparent, collaborative and/or network-based. This webinar will describe recent work conducted by the OpenAIRE and OpenUP projects to define models of OPR, gauge stakeholder attitudes and lay out a roadmap for future OPR implementation. It will focus on how OPR can potentially strengthen research evaluation, describing how alternative peer review tools and methods could better shape scholarly communication and how they contribute to the strengthening Open Science agenda. Specific issues included in the presentations are the variety of models; barriers/drivers for moving OPR mainstream; attitudes to OPR (what reviewers, authors and editors actually want); how to motivate and credit review work; technical infrastructure and platforms; and the next steps for researching the efficacy of different OPR models. The webinar will be of interest to all with an interest in how research evaluation can better meet the aims of Open Science.

Veröffentlicht in: Wissenschaft
  • Als Erste(r) kommentieren

OpenUP - innovative methods of peer review

  1. 1. OPR webinar Sept. 15, 2017, 12:00
  2. 2. Our mission . within the Open Science ecosystem. peer review disseminatio n of research results impact measureme nt Analysis of available methods User centered evaluation Defining require- ments Involving stakehold ers Topics Use cases Methodolog y Arts and Humanitie s Social sciences Life sciences Energy pening UP new methods, indicators and tools for…
  3. 3. 3 Goals 1. Peer review landscape scan: • Map out the alternative review tools and services • Prepare user guides • Examine peer review in context of research flow and in different disciplinary settings • Develop a framework for evidece-based research on peer review. 2. Create ties with other EU projects – aligning efforts in researching open peer review and open science practices: • sharing taxonomies (FOSTER), • building on previous research (OpenAIRE), • organizing workshops and webinars together.
  4. 4. 4 Challenges • Competing definitions of open peer review • Complicated publishing scene • Lack of attention on research products other than research publishing https://f1000research.com/articles/6-1151/v1
  5. 5. 5 • Analyze methods and tools, traditional but also innovative and emerging ones, • define roles and processes in non- traditional peer review, • develop a coherent, practical and validated framework for open peer review, • Investigate the gender aspect of peer review. Peer review landscape scan
  6. 6. 6 Established review system Quality control Checking validitiy Assessing originality and significance Lengthy Costly Bias Lack of standards Abuse Tansparency Motivation Democratization Digital gap Bias Problems of open ID SWOT
  7. 7. 7 Alternative review services & platforms Publishers Publishing platforms Independent review services Repository based review platforms & tools Review/Annotation applications
  8. 8. 8 Publishing platforms Collaborative peer review Interactive peer review Post-publication peer review
  9. 9. Decoupled review services 9
  10. 10. Preprint based publishing 10 Should researchers publish their findings before peer review? BY IVAN ORANSKY AND ADAM MARCUS MAY 27, 2016
  11. 11. 11 Changing discourse - Redefining roles Role of peer review Functions: critical review/checking the soundness of research assessing originality, novelty, interest Changing role of editors Tasks: first scan, finding reviewers, reviewing, collaboration with authors/other editors Growing responsibility of authors Tasks: finding reviewers, cooperation with editors/reviewers, revisions based on community comments Role of the community/peers: who is the peer? Involvement of peers
  12. 12. 12 Growing demands 1. Transparency Reasons behind the reservations with the established peer-review system and proportions of respondents rating then as ‘very important’ or ‘somewhat important’ Note: Responses to question ‘2.1b - How important are the below reasons behind your reservations with the established peer review system?’ N=[253 – 256]. The percentages show a share of respondents who chose ‘very important’ and ‘somewhat important’ answer categories. OpenUp Survey 2017 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Natural Sciences Engineering and Technology Medical Sciences Agricultural Sciences Social Sciences Humanities Mathematics, statistics, computer science Total Reasons behind the reservations towards the established peer-review system Quality of peer review reports Time/duration peer review takes Transparency issues, i.e. lack of openness in the process Lack of scientific communication between authors and reviewers
  13. 13. 13 Growing demands 2. Incentives to review Crediting peer review  Publons, Peerage of Science  Peer review in academic promotion- recommendation of the OSI workgroup: Address incentives and motivations to participate in peer review, not only in the context of rewards or credits for individuals but also in terms of the importance of peer review for promotion and tenure. (Acreman 2016) 3. Training young scholars
  14. 14. 14 Toolbox in OpenUp hub • User guides: researchers (young scholars), publishers, librarians Q&A format • Must reads: categories, definitions, reports, surveys, articles • Initiatives • Training materials • Articles OpenUp hub (beta version) https://www.openuphub.eu/review
  15. 15. 15 Advance Open Science practices 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
  16. 16. 16 1.Data should be made publicly available. 2.In case some data or materials are not open, clear reasons (e.g., legal, ethical constraints, or severe impracticality) should be given why. 3.Documents containing details for interpreting any files or code, and how to compile and run any software programs should be made available with the above items. 4. The location of all of these files should be advertised in the manuscript, and all files should be hosted by a reliable third party.
  17. 17. 17  Move toward greater transparency to improve accountability and minimize bias.  Move toward greater inclusiveness by encouraging wider participation.  Identify new approaches that lessen rather than increase the burden of reviewing and decrease the waste of reviewer’s time.  Conduct more evidence-based analyses of different forms of peer review.  Address incentives and motivations to participate OSI2016 Peer Review workgroup
  18. 18. 18

×