This is a read only archive of pad.okfn.org. See the
Title: Peer Review
Moderator: Johannes Breuer
* Andreas Leimbach
open peer review: e.g., peerj.com
incentives: list journals you review for on your CV
- double-blind, single-blind, non-anonymous
- risk of trolling: need for gatekeepers/moderators
- post-publication peer review (example: https://pubpeer.com/, http://retractionwatch.com/)
- what is the "final" version? is there such thing?
- possible solution: individual DOIs for every version
- change of workflow and the process of research
- how long should the paper be revised/reviseable?
- publication of reviews? alongside all versions of the paper -> transparency
print culture vs. digital age & "Science 2.0": access, dissemination, archiving...
- getting credit for your work (e.g. https://publons.com/)
- monetaty incentives? good or bad?
- Awards (see below reviewers of the year)
- evaluation criteria at universities etc: typically publications, grants, teaching (not reviews/reviewing)
- service to the community (give and take)
- peer review not valued enough? Paying for peer review is probably not a good idea! But, peer review is done for the publishers/journals after all.
- business model(s) of publications/journals: publicly-paid researchers write, review, and edit for free; publishers sell their subscriptions to (public) libraries
- scientists should be in control of the publishing system! Get rid of the middle man (the publisher) ...
- moving away from the IF and the "traditional" metrics of impact: alternatives? e.g., https://www.altmetric.com/
open access & science/scientists should be in control of the publication process
reviewers & editors as gatekeepers? quality control?
- societies/associations as publishers (e.g., APA, DGPs etc.)
- necessary infrastructures? to publish & share papers, data, code, software, materials etc.
Some Journals have a list of reviewers of the year (speed, amount of reviews, substantial feedback)
- choosing/suggesting reviewer
- reviewing networks (schemes)
evaluation criteria for review(er)s?
- But is subjective
- Alternative, journals with a list of just all peer reviewers for a year
reviewing reviews: feedback cycle
- # of reviews
- speed of reviews
- word count
- example: journalreviewer.org; Quality Open Access Market (QOAM)