ABSTRACT: This is the last of a series of posts describing OpenAIRE’s work to find a community-endorsed definition of “open peer review” (OPR), its features and implementations. As described in Parts One and Two, OpenAIRE collected 122 definitions of “open review” or “open peer review” from the scientific literature. Iterative analysis of these definitions resulted in the identification of seven distinct OPR traits at work in various combinations amongst these definitions: Open identities: Aut...

ABSTRACT: This is part two of a series of posts describing OpenAIRE’s work to find a community-endorsed definition of “open peer review” (OPR), its features and implementations. As described in Part One, OpenAIRE collected 122 definitions of “open review” or “open peer review” from the scientific literature. Iterative analysis of these definitions resulted in the identification of seven distinct OPR traits at work in various combinations amongst these definitions: Open identities: Authors and re...

ABSTRACT: At present there is neither a standardized definition of “open peer review” (OPR) nor an agreed schema of its features and implementations, which is highly problematic for discussion of its potential benefits and drawbacks. This new series of blog posts reports on work to resolve these difficulties by analysing the literature for available definitions of “open peer review” and “open review”. In all, 122 definitions have been collected and codified against a range of independent OPR tra...

As part of its mission to further Open Science and investigate how openness and transparency can improve scientific processes, OpenAIRE has been conducting a range of activities investigating the new models of peer review to literature and beyond that fall under the term "Open Peer Review" (OPR). OPR is an umbrella term for a variety of ways in which the traditional peer review process can be by modifed to make it more inclusive, transparent and/or accountable. Its main aspects are: open identit...

NOTE: OpenAIRE would like to know what you think about open peer review! Have your say here until 7th October! Tl;dr - "Post-publication peer review" (PPPR) has gained a lot of traction in recent years. As with much of peer review’s confusing lexicon, however, this term is ambiguous. This ambiguity stems from confusion over what constitutes “publication” in the digital age. PPPR conflates two distinct phenomena, which we would do better to treat separately, namely “open pre-review manuscripts” a...

F1000Research, an open access publisher operating an innovative model of post-publication peer review, was yesterday embroiled in controversy as it emerged that their criteria for accepting manuscripts for submission are based partly on the status of the author or their research institution, rather than simply upon the quality of the science itself.Chealsye Bowley, OA advocate and scholarly communications librarian, revealed on Twitter that she had had a paper rejected by F1000Research. Apparent...

 As part of OpenAIRE2020, OpenEdition, in association with the Couperin consortium and the environmental science journal VertigO, is carrying out experiments in the areas of open peer review and open commentary. Although the experiments are still ongoing, we are here able to share an update on progress, along with some preliminary findings.The journal chosen for the experiments, VertigO, is a popular environmental sciences journal that receives a large number of submissions. In addition to the h...

Why aren’t articles on arXiv or any other open access repository formally credited as publications? What is it exactly that separates open access repositories from publishers? The simple answer is that publications in journals come with an amorphous quality indicator associated with the journal’s perceived prestige. Articles posted on a repository on the other hand, are considered to be “provided at the reader’s own risk”, as they are not accompanied by any measurable guarantee of their scientif...

Last week I attended the OAI9 conference in Geneva. Great weather, great discussions and a great programme. The Thurs afternoon session on “Quality Assurance” (read: peer review) was of particular interest for me. Since I actually took notes (something I usually don't), I thought I'd give them a bit more form and put them to use here. Enjoy. PLOS First up, Damian Pattinson from PLOS discussed “Managing Peer Review at Scale” with PLOS One. Scale is certainly correct – PLOS One publishes over 600 ...

OpenAIRE supports OA infrastructure in Europe and beyond, to help realize Open Science for the benefit of society, innovation and industry. OpenAIRE2020, the current project phase, is investigating a full complement of scholarly communication building blocks, including research data management support, gold open access, usage statistics, Linked Open Data, a publication broker and global interoperability. As part of this effort, Göttingen State and University Library, in partnership with COUPERIN...