Open Knowledge Creation: Bringing Transparency and Inclusiveness to the Peer Review Process

Hardaway, Donald E.; Scamell, Richard W.

doi:10.2307/41703458

Cited by 12 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Various permutations of open review have also been attempted unsuccessfully in the IS discipline (Hardaway & Scamell, 2012). For example, MISQ Discovery, the MISQ repository of living documents, received few submissions.…”

Section: Drawbacksmentioning

confidence: 99%

ICIS 2017 Panel Report: Break Your Shackles! Emancipating Information Systems from the Tyranny of Peer Review

Chua¹,

Thatcher²,

Niederman³

et al. 2018

CAIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper presents the report of a panel that debated the review process in the information systems (IS) discipline at ICIS 2017 in Seoul, Korea. The panel asked the fundamental question of whether we need to rethink the way we review papers in the discipline. The panelists partnered with the audience to explore some reviewing limitations in IS today and the ways that reviewing in the discipline might change to address some of its difficulties. We first report key concerns with modern reviewing. We then present arguments for and against three proposals (i.e., paying for reviews, mandatory reviews, and open reviews) and a panel audience vote on the issues. We neither advocate for nor condemn these solutions but rather use them to illustrate what we believe represent the core underlying issues with reviewing in the IS discipline. Specifically, we believe the key stumbling blocks to effectively improving our review process include 1) a lack of empirical data on actual practice, 2) a lack of clear goals, and 3) an ignorance of the possible solutions to the review dilemma that the wider literature articulates.

show abstract

Section: Drawbacksmentioning

confidence: 99%

ICIS 2017 Panel Report: Break Your Shackles! Emancipating Information Systems from the Tyranny of Peer Review

Chua¹,

Thatcher²,

Niederman³

et al. 2018

CAIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…postal services which, coincidentally, had significant uptake in Europe in the seventeenth century, or the invention of the printing press by Johannes Gutenberg in the fifteenth century). Many aspects of the open science model, such as peer review, open access and data sharing, may now be further opened up using digital information technologies (Hardaway and Scamell, 2012;Suber, 2013;van der Aalst et al, 2016). When the first computer systems were distributed in the 1950s, it was common to share software source code.…”

Section: Topics Of Research On Opennessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Openness” with and without Information Technology: A Framework and a Brief History

Schlagwein

Conboy

Feller

et al. 2017

Journal of Information Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past two decades, openness (e.g. 'open' innovation, 'open' education and 'open' strategy) has been of increasing interest for researchers and of increasing relevance to practitioners. Openness is often deeply embedded in information technology (IT) and can be both a driver for and a result of innovative IT. To clarify the concept of ''openness'', we provide an overview of the scope of cross-disciplinary research on openness. Based on this overview, we develop a framework of openness, which proposes a higher-order concept of ''openness'' characterised by transparency, access, participation and democracy. The framework further distinguishes open resources, open processes and the effects of opening on particular domains. To provide the historical context and to appreciate the role of IT in openness, we discuss two historical examples of openness: the introduction of an open science model in academia (openness without IT) and the emergence of open source software development (openness with IT). We conclude by highlighting some concerns with and limitations of ''openness''.

show abstract

“…Today, peer review (PR), including the double‐blind, single blind, open, and signed variants, is regarded by many as the quintessential mechanism to safeguard academic publishing standards (Benda & Engels, ; Bornmann, ). Although PR is often debated and innovative ways of evaluation of publications are conceivable and put into practice (e.g., Giménez‐Toledo & Román‐Román, ; Hardaway & Scamell, ), virtually all high‐esteem journals use some type of PR to assure content quality of published articles (Hames, ; Research Information Network, ). Hence, the inclusion of journals in citation indexes and academic bibliographic databases depends, among other things, on PR being a part of their editorial procedure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A label for peer‐reviewed books

Verleysen

Engels

2012

J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Publishers Association of Flanders, Belgium, has created a label for peer-reviewed books: the Guaranteed Peer Reviewed Content (GPRC) label (www.gprc.be/en). We introduce the label and the logic behind it. A label for peer-reviewed books encourages transparency in academic book publishing. It is especially relevant for the social sciences and humanities and in the context of performance-based funding of university research.

show abstract

Open Knowledge Creation: Bringing Transparency and Inclusiveness to the Peer Review Process

Cited by 12 publications

References 7 publications

ICIS 2017 Panel Report: Break Your Shackles! Emancipating Information Systems from the Tyranny of Peer Review

ICIS 2017 Panel Report: Break Your Shackles! Emancipating Information Systems from the Tyranny of Peer Review

“Openness” with and without Information Technology: A Framework and a Brief History

A label for peer‐reviewed books

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About