The subject of peer review has come under increased scrutiny partially due to high profile cases of fraud and other misinformation appearing in academic journals. At the same time, new publishing technologies have made it possible to experiment with new forms of peer review, while the "Open Archives Initiative" has the potential to allow authors to bypass the traditional peer review process entirely. In this paper, I examine some rationales given for the need for secrecy in peer review, especially as it relates to the perceived need for anonymity on the part of reviewers and sometimes even authors. I will propose a basic framework for secrecy and transparency as it relates to the peer review process of academic journals. IntroductionIn December 2006, there was a debate about peer review featured prominently on the website of the journal Nature. In addition to a series of articles discussing various systems of peer review; its effect on the quality and value of research; research ethics; new technical implementations of peer review; and a series of individual perspectives and reflections on the subject; it includes an experiment in "open" peer review. Authors were given the option of posting their manuscripts for open peer review at the same time they submitted their work for the more traditional, confidential peer review process. For authors who elected to participate in the experiment in open peer review, comments on their research were solicited from qualified members of the public. Those who wished to comment could do so on the moderated forum on the Nature website. Unlike traditional peer review, anonymous comments were not allowed. The self-selected reviewers were required to give both their name and institutional affiliation. The stated purpose of this experiment was to "measure the level of participation among authors and the quality of comments received by members of the specialist community who are not the selected peer reviewers of the manuscripts concerned." (Nature website, 2006).Despite some initial enthusiasm, the four month experiment met with mixed results. Only five percent of authors chose to post their papers on the open server for comments, perhaps due to the fear of being "scooped". Except for a handful of relative highly commented on papers, there was a dearth of substantive comments despite statistics that showed a high level of web traffic.Biology Direct is an example of a journal that has gone beyond the experimentation phase, and formally implemented a system of open peer review. An online journal that began publication in January 2006, the editorial policy requires that reviewer comments, along with the author's response, are published alongside the article. The main hurdle to authors to overcome in order to qualify for publication is that three members of the editorial board must become sufficiently interested in the research to agree to act as reviewers or to solicit outside reviewers. Once this requirement is met, the policy even allows for publication of papers that have r...
Academic libraries have been exploring alternatives to publisher's "Big Deal" e-journal packages due to budgetary restrictions, complicated and inflexible contracts, and questions about the value of adding peripheral titles to their collections. A possible alternative to e-journal bundles is Pay-Per-View (PPV), which allows articles to be purchased on an individual basis. This article explores one library's experiences beginning to unbundle a publisher's "Big Deal," using a mix of individual journal subscriptions and PPV.It provides detailed analysis of articles purchased by PPV when library patrons were offered unfettered access to virtually the entire publisher's collection for the first time. It also offers suggestions on how to improve PPV infrastructure for adoption by academic libraries, including extending the viewing period, offering customizable intercept messages, enhancing usage reporting, and making it possible to limit access to titles within the collection.Many academic libraries subscribed to publishers' "Big Deal" or bundled e-journal packages with expectations of significantly expanded access for relatively small increases over historical expenditure levels. "Big Deal"
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.