<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><sec id="j_jdis.201625_s_007_w2aab2b8c55b1b7b1aab1c15b1Aa"><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To understand how authors and reviewers are accepting and embracing Open Peer Review (OPR), one of the newest innovations in the Open Science movement.</p></sec><sec id="j_jdis.201625_s_008_w2aab2b8c55b1b7b1aab1c15b2Aa"><h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3><p>This research collected and analyzed data from the Open Access journal <italic>PeerJ</italic> 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.</p></sec><sec id="j_jdis.201625_s_009_w2aab2b8c55b1b7b1aab1c15b3Aa"><h3>Findings</h3><p><italic>PeerJ</italic>, 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.</p></sec><sec id="j_jdis.201625_s_010_w2aab2b8c55b1b7b1aab1c15b4Aa"><h3>Research limitations</h3><p>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.</p></sec><sec id="j_jdis.201625_s_011_w2aab2b8c55b1b7b1aab1c15b5Aa"><h3>Practical implications</h3><p>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 <italic>PeerJ</italic> review data demonstrate that there is still some reluctance by authors to make their reviews public and by reviewers to identify themselves.</p></sec><sec id="j_jdis.201625_s_012_w2aab2b8c55b1b7b1aab1c15b6Aa"><h3>Originality/value</h3><p>This is the first study to closely examine <italic>PeerJ</italic> 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.</p></sec></abstract>

PurposeTo 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/approachThis 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.FindingsPeerJ, 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 limitationsThis 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 implicationsThese 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/valueThis 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.

Open Peer Review in Scientific Publishing: A Web Mining Study of <italic>PeerJ</italic> Authors and Reviewers

Journal of Data and Information Science

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Open Peer Review in Scientific Publishing: A Web Mining Study of  Authors and Reviewers

PurposeTo understand how authors and reviewers are accepting and embracing Open Peer Review (OPR), one of the newest innovations in the Open Science...

Version	Anonymous	Both	Signed	External Portable review reports were used by the editors.	Total
1	2	5	0	6	13
2	247	423	145	4	819
3	93	182	56	0	331
4	16	18	11	0	45
5	0	6	0	0	6
Total	359	633	212	10	1,214
Percentage	29.82	52.57	17.61	—	—

	Sentences		Tokens

	Anonymous	Signed	Anonymous	Signed
Mean	28.09	28.81	477.16	508.41
Std. Dev.	23.74	24.07	389.87	427.25
Median	22	22	368	394
Min	1	1	8	7
Max	275	167	2,604	3,747
T test Prob.	0.432		0.050

Ranking	Country of origin	Number of articles	Country of origin	Number of articles with published review reports	Percentage
1	USA	700	USA	536	76.57%
2	UK	254	UK	202	79.53%
3	Australia	136	Australia	98	72.06%
4	Canada	100	Canada	69	69.00%
5	China	96	Germany	67	73.63%
6	Germany	91	China	58	60.42%
7	Spain	61	Spain	49	80.33%
8	France	59	France	45	76.27%
9	Netherlands	50	Netherlands	41	82.00%
10	Japan	49	Japan	31	63.27%

	Sentences		Tokens

	Anonymous	Signed	Anonymous	Signed
Mean	27.71	27.90	478.93	495.25
Std. Dev.	21.83	24.16	385.02	431.15
Median	22.00	21.00	382.00	372.00
Min	1	1	9	7
Max	143	167	2,604	3,435
T test Prob.	0.874		0.436

Open Peer Review in Scientific Publishing: A Web Mining Study of PeerJ Authors and Reviewers

Article Category: Research Paper

Publié en ligne: 01 sept. 2017

Pages: 60 - 80

Reçu: 30 juil. 2016

Accepté: 30 août 2016

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20309/jdis.201625

Mots clés
Open Peer Review (OPR, Adoption of OPR, Open Access, Open Science, Open research, Scientific communication

© 2016 Peiling Wang, Sukjin You, Rath Manasa, Dietmar Wolfram

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 8

Acceptance of the types of reviews for articles by versions.

Review length of the first round of all articles (Na = 1,537; Ns = 1,183).

Ranking and percentage of the countries whose authors participating in OPR.

First round of review of the articles (each had both signed and anonymous reports).

Open Peer Review in Scientific Publishing: A Web Mining Study of PeerJ Authors and Reviewers

Article Category: Research Paper

Publié en ligne: 01 sept. 2017

Pages: 60 - 80

Reçu: 30 juil. 2016

Accepté: 30 août 2016

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20309/jdis.201625

Mots clésOpen Peer Review (OPR, Adoption of OPR, Open Access, Open Science, Open research, Scientific communication

© 2016 Peiling Wang, Sukjin You, Rath Manasa, Dietmar Wolfram

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 8

Acceptance of the types of reviews for articles by versions.

Review length of the first round of all articles (Na = 1,537; Ns = 1,183).

Ranking and percentage of the countries whose authors participating in OPR.

First round of review of the articles (each had both signed and anonymous reports).

Mots clés
Open Peer Review (OPR, Adoption of OPR, Open Access, Open Science, Open research, Scientific communication