Open up: a survey on open and non-anonymized peer reviewing
- PDF / 842,742 Bytes
- 11 Pages / 595 x 791 pts Page_size
- 56 Downloads / 176 Views
(2020) 5:8
Research Integrity and Peer Review
RESEARCH
Open Access
Open up: a survey on open and non-anonymized peer reviewing Lonni Besançon1,2*
, Niklas Rönnberg1 , Jonas Löwgren1 , Jonathan P. Tennant3,4,5 ˆ and Matthew Cooper1
Abstract Background: Our aim is to highlight the benefits and limitations of open and non-anonymized peer review. Our argument is based on the literature and on responses to a survey on the reviewing process of alt.chi, a more or less open review track within the so-called Computer Human Interaction (CHI) conference, the predominant conference in the field of human-computer interaction. This track currently is the only implementation of an open peer review process in the field of human-computer interaction while, with the recent increase in interest in open scientific practices, open review is now being considered and used in other fields. Methods: We ran an online survey with 30 responses from alt.chi authors and reviewers, collecting quantitative data using multiple-choice questions and Likert scales. Qualitative data were collected using open questions. Results: Our main quantitative result is that respondents are more positive to open and non-anonymous reviewing for alt.chi than for other parts of the CHI conference. The qualitative data specifically highlight the benefits of open and transparent academic discussions. The data and scripts are available on https://osf.io/vuw7h/, and the figures and follow-up work on http://tiny.cc/OpenReviews. Conclusion: While the benefits are quite clear and the system is generally well-liked by alt.chi participants, they remain reluctant to see it used in other venues. This concurs with a number of recent studies that suggest a divergence between support for a more open review process and its practical implementation. Keywords: Peer review, Open science
Introduction Pre-publication peer review of scientific articles is generally considered to be an essential part of ensuring the quality of scholarly research communications [1–3]. It can take many forms from single-round peer review, typical of conferences, to multiple-stage peer reviewing, more common in scholarly journals. Variants of these processes also include zero-blind (neither reviewers nor authors are anonymous), single-blind (reviewers are anonymous), and double-blind (both authors and reviewers are anonymous) systems (see for example [4]). With the major changes *Correspondence: [email protected] ˆDeceased 1 Linköping University, Norrköping, Sweden 2 Université Paris Sud, Orsay, France Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
currently happening in scholarly communication systems, there is now a strong imperative for those who manage the peer review process to be absolutely clear about their policies and, where possible, upon what evidence such policies are based [5]. The names of these different variations can be confusing for researchers. While “open review” has often been used in the past to mean “non-anonymized” reviews (e.g., [6, 7]), we wil
Data Loading...
