Report from the Peer Review Workgroup

Authors

  • Bev Acreman Commercial Director, F1000
  • Peter Berkery Executive Director, American Association of University Presses
  • Caroline Black Editorial Director, BioMed Central (SpringerNature)
  • Chis Bourg Director, MIT Libraries
  • Becky Brasington Clark Director of Publishing, Library of Congress
  • Angela Cochran Director of Journals, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
  • Kevin Davies Vice President for Business Development, American Chemical Society, and Publisher, C&EN
  • Rachel Dresbeck President, and Director of Research Development & Communications, Oregon Health & Science University, National Organization of Research Development Professionals
  • Catriona MacCallum Acting Advocacy Director, PLOS
  • Paul Peters CEO, Hindawi Publishing
  • Bobby Schnabel CEO, Association of Computing Machinery
  • Francisco Valdés Ugalde Director General, Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences (FLACSO) in Mexico

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.13021/G8K88P

Abstract

The OSI2016 Peer Review workgroup focused on peer review in the context of open scholaríship. The group agreed that greater openness and transparency would improve accountaíbility, minimize bias, and encourage collaboration, but did not underestimate the challenges of openness, nor the variation in readiness across disciplines and publishing modíels. The group recommended facilitation of peer review outside the traditional publication processââ¬âfor example, in the context of preprint servers and after publicationââ¬âwith incenítives for broad participation. These incentives need to include a cultural shift in recognition of peer review as a valid activity contributing to career progression.

OSI2016 Workgroup Question

Managing the peer review process is one of the major attractions and benefits of the current publisher-driven publishing environment. Would it be possible to maintain peer review in different system ââ¬â perhaps one where peer review happens at the institutional level, or in an online-review environment? How? What is really needed from peer review, what are the reform options (and what do we already know about the options that have been tried)?

Downloads

Published

2016-04-19

Issue

2016

Section

Reports