Adam Etkin's Open Peer Review Presentation from CSE 2014

{

Open Peer ReviewThe Good, the Bad and the Ugly

What IS “Open”?

More openness to provide assurance that you did what you said you would

Openness to share more, but not all, information about the process

Open the box to show everything you did

Open to all to view and participate

There’s not just one “right” approach

One size does not fit all

Before Opening the Box

PROS Increased level of trust & transparency Reviewers will think more carefully about the research and provide more

attentive, detailed comments May expose possible conflicts of interest Reduction of antagonistic comments and unsupported criticisms Post-publication open review may result in a larger pool of reviewers Faster speed to publication Reviewers are acknowledged and get credit for their contributions

CONS Increased difficulty in finding reviewers (Reality check!) Younger scientists may feel it difficult to be completely candid, knowing that the

author they are reviewing may have influence over their future Well-known authors could receive preferential treatment There may be legal and copyright issues to consider

Pros & Cons of Open Review

I’d like your honest opinion on something…..

We support validation of all approaches to peer review

We support sharing additional information around the peer review process while respecting the need for anonymity

We support more open approaches, if desired

We want to help reviewers get credit for the valuable service they perform

How Can PRE-score Help?

Online Demo

Thank You!

Adam Etkin

aetkin@prescore.org

www.prescore.org

Twitter: @prescore1 and @adametkin

Info about peer review process:• COPE member?• Rounds of review• Plagiarism screening?• Roles who participated

Additional Info:• Reviewer comments• Reviewer names