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
发表期刊Journal of Data and Information Science
卷号1期号:4页码:60-80
摘要
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.
文章类型Research Papers
关键词Open Peer Review (Opr) Adoption Of Opr Open Access Open Science Open Research Scientific Communication
学科领域新闻学与传播学 ; 图书馆、情报与文献学
DOI10.20309/jdis.201625
URL查看原文
收录类别其他
语种英语
引用统计
文献类型期刊论文
条目标识符http://ir.las.ac.cn/handle/12502/8907
专题Journal of Data and Information Science_Journal of Data and Information Science-2016
通讯作者Dietmar Wolfram (E-mail:dwolfram@uwm.edu)
作者单位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
第一作者单位中国科学院文献情报中心
推荐引用方式
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.
条目包含的文件
文件名称/大小 文献类型 版本类型 开放类型 使用许可
20160404.pdf(2070KB)期刊论文作者接受稿开放获取CC BY-NC-SA请求全文
个性服务
推荐该条目
保存到收藏夹
查看访问统计
导出为Endnote文件
谷歌学术
谷歌学术中相似的文章
[Peiling Wang]的文章
[Sukjin You]的文章
[Rath Manasa]的文章
百度学术
百度学术中相似的文章
[Peiling Wang]的文章
[Sukjin You]的文章
[Rath Manasa]的文章
必应学术
必应学术中相似的文章
[Peiling Wang]的文章
[Sukjin You]的文章
[Rath Manasa]的文章
相关权益政策
暂无数据
收藏/分享
所有评论 (0)
暂无评论
 

除非特别说明,本系统中所有内容都受版权保护,并保留所有权利。