中国科学院文献情报中心机构知识库
Advanced  
NSL OpenIR  > Journal of Data and Information Science  > Journal of Data and Information Science-2016  > 期刊论文
Title: Open Peer Review in Scientific Publishing: A Web Mining Study of <i>PeerJ</i> Authors and Reviewers
Author: Peiling Wang1; Sukjin You2; Rath Manasa1; Dietmar Wolfram2
Source: Journal of Data and Information Science
Issued Date: 2016-11-03
Volume: 1, Issue:4, Pages:60-80
Keyword: Open Peer Review (OPR) ; Adoption of OPR ; Open Access ; Open Science ; Open research ; Scientific communication
Subject: 新闻学与传播学 ; 图书馆、情报与文献学
Indexed Type: 其他
DOI: 10.20309/jdis.201625
Corresponding Author: Dietmar Wolfram (E-mail:dwolfram@uwm.edu)
DOC Type: Research Papers
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.
English 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.
Related URLs: 查看原文
Language: 英语
Citation statistics:
Content Type: 期刊论文
URI: http://ir.las.ac.cn/handle/12502/8907
Appears in Collections:Journal of Data and Information Science_Journal of Data and Information Science-2016 _期刊论文

Files in This Item:
File Name/ File Size Content Type Version Access License
20160404.pdf(2070KB)期刊论文作者接受稿开放获取View Download

description.institution: 1.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

Recommended Citation:
Peiling Wang,Sukjin You,Rath Manasa,et al. Open Peer Review in Scientific Publishing: A Web Mining Study of <i>PeerJ</i> Authors and Reviewers[J]. Journal of Data and Information Science,2016,1(4):60-80.
Service
Recommend this item
Sava as my favorate item
Show this item's statistics
Export Endnote File
Google Scholar
Similar articles in Google Scholar
[Peiling Wang]'s Articles
[Sukjin You]'s Articles
[Rath Manasa]'s Articles
CSDL cross search
Similar articles in CSDL Cross Search
[Peiling Wang]‘s Articles
[Sukjin You]‘s Articles
[Rath Manasa]‘s Articles
Related Copyright Policies
Null
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit
文件名: 20160404.pdf
格式: Adobe PDF
所有评论 (0)
暂无评论
 
评注功能仅针对注册用户开放,请您登录
您对该条目有什么异议,请填写以下表单,管理员会尽快联系您。
内 容:
Email:  *
单位:
验证码:   刷新
您在IR的使用过程中有什么好的想法或者建议可以反馈给我们。
标 题:
 *
内 容:
Email:  *
验证码:   刷新

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

 

 

Valid XHTML 1.0!
Copyright © 2007-2017  中国科学院文献情报中心 - Feedback
Powered by CSpace