1. bookVolume 7 (2015): Issue 2 (December 2015)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
First Published
16 Apr 2015
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

Technology and peer review: the open and participatory dimension

Published Online: 19 Feb 2016
Page range: 15 - 20
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
First Published
16 Apr 2015
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
Abstract

Peer review is a consolidated procedure in the academic context and its process affects various range of research outputs from project funding applications to manuscript publication. Peer review can be developed through modalities that imply a different level of transparency in the relationship between anonymity of the author and the reviewer/s.

With the development of social media and the growth of scientific online communities, new forms of peer review have acquired a recognised value, matching the need of the academy to rely on selected reviewers and the need of the prospective author to get a richer feedback from a variety of scholars through different means, open comments and/or discussion fora, and always accessible online.

Hybrid forms of review, which can integrate a formal peer review with an open comment opportunity on the Web, proved successful for both improving the author’s draft and enhancing its chances of publication and for the reviewers who can use this valuable activity to enrich their reputation by collecting and showing their reviews as research output. In this framework, quality, transparency and reputation acquire new nuances in their connection with the process of research validation.

Keywords

Brabham, D. C. (2012). The myth of amateur crowds: A critical discourse analysis of crowdsourcing coverage. Information, Communication & Society, 15(3), 394-410.Search in Google Scholar

Budden, A. E., Tregenza, T., Aarssen, L. W., Koricheva, J., & Leimu, R. (2008). Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23, 4-6.Search in Google Scholar

Buettner, R. (2015). A systematic literature review of crowdsourcing research from a human resource management perspective. Proceedings of the 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - (HICSS-48), (4609-4618). Kauai, Hawaii.Search in Google Scholar

Fedeli L. (2012). Social media e didattica. Opportunità, criticità e prospettive. Lecce: Pensa Multimedia.Search in Google Scholar

Howe, J. (2006). The rise of crowdsourcing. Wired, 14(6). Retrieved from http://goo.gl/vO7E7B.Search in Google Scholar

Jefferson, T., Alderson, P. Wager, E., & Davidoff, F. (2002). Effects of editorial peer review: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287, 2784-2786.Search in Google Scholar

Lane, D. (2008). Double-blind review: Easy to guess in specialist fields. Nature, 452, 28.Search in Google Scholar

Lupton, D. (2014). “Feeling Better Connected”: Academics’ Use of Social Media University of Canberra. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/OFBFaE.Search in Google Scholar

Peters, D., & Ceci, S. (1982). Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of submitted articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5, 187-255.Search in Google Scholar

Pöschl, U. (2012). Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6(July), 33. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2012.00033.Search in Google Scholar

Publons, (2013). Publons Launches DOI Support For Peer Reviews. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/b9iElb.Search in Google Scholar

Research Councils UK (2006). Report of the Research Councils UK Efficiency and Effectiveness of Peer Review Project. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/dlRb1n.Search in Google Scholar

Research Information Network. (2010). Peer review. A guide for researchers. Retrieved from www.rin.ac.uk/peerreview-guide.Search in Google Scholar

Research Information Network (2015). Scholarly Communication and Peer Review. The Current Landscape and Future Trends. Research Information Network. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/YMhzKb.Search in Google Scholar

Shum, S. B., & Sumner, T. (2001). JIME: An interactive journal for interactive media. First Monday, 6 (2). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/836/745.Search in Google Scholar

Sumner, T., Shum S. B. (1996). Open Peer Review & Argumentation: Loosening the Paper Chains on Journals. Ariadne. Retrieved from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue5/jime.Search in Google Scholar

The British Academy. (2007). Executive Summary and Recommendations. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/SKkDEz.Search in Google Scholar

The Royal Society. (1995). Peer Review - An assessment of recent developments. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/RH27TU.Search in Google Scholar

Ware, M., & Monkman, M. (2008). Peer review in scholarly journals: Perspective of the scholarly community - an international study. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/ThJCXp.Search in Google Scholar

Weller, M. (2011). The Digital Scholar. How technology is transforming scholarly practice. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Search in Google Scholar

Wennerås, C., & Wold, A. (1997). Sexism and nepotism in peer-review. Nature, 387, 341-3. Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo