Open Peer Review in Scientific Publishing: A Web Mining Study of PeerJ Authors and Reviewers
Peiling Wang1; Sukjin You2; Rath Manasa1; Dietmar Wolfram2; Dietmar Wolfram (E-mail:dwolfram@uwm.edu)
2016-11-03
Source PublicationJournal of Data and Information Science
Volume1Issue:4Pages:60-80
Abstract
Purpose: To understand how authors and reviewers are accepting and embracing Open Peer Review (OPR), one of the newest innovations in the Open Science movement.
Design/methodology/approach: This research collected and analyzed data from the Open Access journal PeerJ over its first three years (2013-2016). Web data were scraped, cleaned, and structured using several Web tools and programs. The structured data were imported into a relational database. Data analyses were conducted using analytical tools as well as programs developed by the researchers.
Findings: PeerJ, which supports optional OPR, has a broad international representation of authors and referees. Approximately 73.89% of articles provide full review histories. Of the articles with published review histories, 17.61% had identities of all reviewers and 52.57% had at least one signed reviewer. In total, 43.23% of all reviews were signed. The observed proportions of signed reviews have been relatively stable over the period since the Journal's inception.
Research limitations: This research is constrained by the availability of the peer review history data. Some peer reviews were not available when the authors opted out of publishing their review histories. The anonymity of reviewers made it impossible to give an accurate count of reviewers who contributed to the review process.
Practical implications: These findings shed light on the current characteristics of OPR. Given the policy that authors are encouraged to make their articles' review history public and referees are encouraged to sign their review reports, the three years of PeerJ review data demonstrate that there is still some reluctance by authors to make their reviews public and by reviewers to identify themselves.
Originality/value: This is the first study to closely examine PeerJ as an example of an OPR model journal. As Open Science moves further towards open research, OPR is a final and critical component. Research in this area must identify the best policies and paths towards a transparent and open peer review process for scientific communication.
; Purpose: To understand how authors and reviewers are accepting and embracing Open Peer Review (OPR), one of the newest innovations in the Open Science movement.
Design/methodology/approach: This research collected and analyzed data from the Open Access journal PeerJ over its first three years (2013-2016). Web data were scraped, cleaned, and structured using several Web tools and programs. The structured data were imported into a relational database. Data analyses were conducted using analytical tools as well as programs developed by the researchers.
Findings: PeerJ, which supports optional OPR, has a broad international representation of authors and referees. Approximately 73.89% of articles provide full review histories. Of the articles with published review histories, 17.61% had identities of all reviewers and 52.57% had at least one signed reviewer. In total, 43.23% of all reviews were signed. The observed proportions of signed reviews have been relatively stable over the period since the Journal's inception.
Research limitations: This research is constrained by the availability of the peer review history data. Some peer reviews were not available when the authors opted out of publishing their review histories. The anonymity of reviewers made it impossible to give an accurate count of reviewers who contributed to the review process.
Practical implications: These findings shed light on the current characteristics of OPR. Given the policy that authors are encouraged to make their articles' review history public and referees are encouraged to sign their review reports, the three years of PeerJ review data demonstrate that there is still some reluctance by authors to make their reviews public and by reviewers to identify themselves.
Originality/value: This is the first study to closely examine PeerJ as an example of an OPR model journal. As Open Science moves further towards open research, OPR is a final and critical component. Research in this area must identify the best policies and paths towards a transparent and open peer review process for scientific communication.
SubtypeResearch Papers
KeywordOpen Peer Review (Opr) Adoption Of Opr Open Access Open Science Open Research Scientific Communication
Subject Area新闻学与传播学 ; 图书馆、情报与文献学
DOI10.20309/jdis.201625
URL查看原文
Indexed By其他
Language英语
Citation statistics
Document Type期刊论文
Identifierhttp://ir.las.ac.cn/handle/12502/8907
CollectionJournal of Data and Information Science_Journal of Data and Information Science-2016
Corresponding AuthorDietmar Wolfram (E-mail:dwolfram@uwm.edu)
Affiliation1.School of Information Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996-0332, USA
2.School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI 53201, USA
First Author Affilication中国科学院文献情报中心
Recommended Citation
GB/T 7714
Peiling Wang,Sukjin You,Rath Manasa,et al. Open Peer Review in Scientific Publishing: A Web Mining Study of PeerJ Authors and Reviewers[J]. Journal of Data and Information Science,2016,1(4):60-80.
APA Peiling Wang,Sukjin You,Rath Manasa,Dietmar Wolfram,&Dietmar Wolfram .(2016).Open Peer Review in Scientific Publishing: A Web Mining Study of PeerJ Authors and Reviewers.Journal of Data and Information Science,1(4),60-80.
MLA Peiling Wang,et al."Open Peer Review in Scientific Publishing: A Web Mining Study of PeerJ Authors and Reviewers".Journal of Data and Information Science 1.4(2016):60-80.
Files in This Item: Download All
File Name/Size DocType Version Access License
20160404.pdf(2070KB)期刊论文作者接受稿开放获取CC BY-NC-SAView Download
Related Services
Recommend this item
Bookmark
Usage statistics
Export to Endnote
Google Scholar
Similar articles in Google Scholar
[Peiling Wang]'s Articles
[Sukjin You]'s Articles
[Rath Manasa]'s Articles
Baidu academic
Similar articles in Baidu academic
[Peiling Wang]'s Articles
[Sukjin You]'s Articles
[Rath Manasa]'s Articles
Bing Scholar
Similar articles in Bing Scholar
[Peiling Wang]'s Articles
[Sukjin You]'s Articles
[Rath Manasa]'s Articles
Terms of Use
No data!
Social Bookmark/Share
File name: 20160404.pdf
Format: Adobe PDF
All comments (0)
No comment.
 

Items in the repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.