Attitudes of the editors of Brazilian scholarly journals toward open peer review. A survey
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2023.nov.20Keywords:
Open peer review, Scientific editors, Scientific journals, Academic journals, Scholarly journals, Scholarly communication, Open science, SurveysAbstract
Open review is one of the components of open science that scientific journals are incorporating in their editorial processes. In contrast to open access to literature and research data, open review still raises many doubts and concerns among the involved parties (editors, reviewers and authors). This article aims to analyze the perception of editors of Brazilian academic journals on open peer review. To achieve this, a questionnaire was sent to 3,208 editors, out of which 351 responded to the full set of 42 questions. The editors expressed satisfaction with the current model of scientific communication, the double-blind model, and disagreed with any type of identification of reviewers. However, they perceived an advantage in open review, as it allows for mutual interaction between authors and reviewers with the goal of improving the quality of content. As barriers, they pointed out conflicts of interest and rivalries that open review might generate and the difficulty in finding reviewers willing to accept this review model. The overall conclusion points to a conservative profile among editors regarding the introduction of open peer review practices.
Downloads
References
Abadal, Ernest; Silveira, Lúcia da (2020). “Open peer review: otro paso hacia la ciencia abierta por parte de las revistas científicas”. Anuario ThinkEPI, v. 14, e14e02. https://doi.org/10.3145/thinkepi.2020.e14e02
Cassella, Maria (2018). “Tools and methods of innovation in the open science: Open peer review”. AIB studi, v. 58, n. 1, pp. 95-107. https://doi.org/10.2426/aibstudi-11714
Delikoura, Eirini; Kouis, Dimitrios (2021). “Open research data and open peer review: Perceptions of a medical and health sciences community in Greece”. Publications, v. 9, n. 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9020014
Dobusch, Leonhard; Heimstädt, Maximilian (2019). “Predatory publishing in management research: a call for open peer review”. Management learning, [S. l.], v. 50, n. 5, pp. 607-619, 1. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1350507619878820
Fontenelle, Leonardo F.; Sarti, Thiago D. (2021). “Attitudes toward open peer review among stakeholders of a scholar-led journal in Brazil”. Transinformação, v. 33, e200072. https://doi.org/10.1590/2318-0889202133e200072
Garcia, Joana Coeli Ribeiro; Targino, Maria das Graças (2017). “Open peer review sob a ótica de editores das revistas brasileiras da Ciência da Informação”. In: XVIII Encontro Nacional de Pesquisa em Ciência da Informação, Marília, São Paulo. https://brapci.inf.br/index.php/res/v/104007
Garcia, Joana Coeli Ribeiro; Targino, Maria das Graças (2018). “O futuro da open peer review na ciência da informação”. Tendências da Pesquisa Brasileira em Ciência da Informação, v. 11, n. 2. https://brapci.inf.br/index.php/res/v/102816
Garrido-Gallego, Yeimy (2018). “Open peer review for evaluating academic legal publications: The ‘antidote’ to an ‘ill’ blind peer review?”. Tilburg law review, v. 23, n. 1, pp. 77-90. https://tilburglawreview.com/article/10.5334/tilr.128
Hamilton, Daniel G.; Fraser, Hannah; Hoekstra, Rink; Fidler, Fiona (2020). “Journal policies and editors’ opinions on peer review”. eLife, n. 9, e62529. https://elifesciences.org/articles/62529.pdf
Hodonu-Wusu, James-Oluwaseyi (2018). “Open science: A review on open peer review literature”. Library philosophy and practice, v. 2018, 1874. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1874
Hodonu-Wusu, James-Oluwaseyi; Noorhidawati, Abdullah; Abrizah, Abdullah (2021). “The cautious faculty: Malaysian university researchers’ awareness, experiences, and attitudes towards Open Peer Review”. Malaysian journal of library and information science, v. 25, n. 3, pp. 57-76. http://jice.um.edu.my/index.php/MJLIS/article/view/34584/14249
Maia, Francisca Clotilde de Andrade; Farias, Maria Giovanna Guedes (2021). “Revisão por pares aberta: uma análise dos periódicos científicos indexados no Directory of Open Access Journals”. Encontros Bibli, v. 26. https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2021.e79506
Melero, Remedios (2022). “Questions corresponding to the online survey of the article ‘Perceptions regarding open science appraised by editors of scholarly publications published in Spain’”. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6922431
Melero, Remedios; Boté-Vericad, Juan-José; López-Borrull, Alexandre (2023). “Perceptions regarding open science appraised by editors of scholarly publications published in Spain”. Learned publishing, v. 36, n. 2. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1511
Melero, Remedios; López-Santoveña, Fernando (2001). “Referees’ attitudes toward open peer review and electronic transmission of papers”. Food science and technology international, v. 7, n. 6, pp. 521-527. https://doi.org/10.1106/0MXD-YM6F-3LM6-G9EB
Nassi-Calò, Lilian (2015) “Peer review modalities, pros and cons”. SciELO in perspective, March 27. https://blog.scielo.org/en/2015/03/27/peer-review-modalities-pros-and-cons
Panda, Saumya (2019). “The peer review process: Yesterday, today and tomorrow”. Indian journal of dermatology, venereology, and leprology, v. 85, n. 3, pp. 239-245. http://www.ijdvl.com/text.asp?2019/85/3/239/255789
Peebles, Erin; Scandlyn, Marissa; Hesp, Blair R. (2020). “A retrospective study investigating requests for self-citation during open peer review in a general medicine journal”. Plos one, v. 15, n. 8. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237804
Rath, Manasa; Wang, Peiling (2017). “Open peer review in the era of open science: A pilot study of researchers perceptions”. In: Joint conference on digital libraries. Toronto, Canada: IEEE. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7991608
Ribeiro, Nivaldo Calixto (2022). Ciência aberta em universidades públicas federais brasileiras: políticas, ações e iniciativas. Tesis doutoral. Belo Horizonte: Programa de Pós-Graduação em Gestão e Organização do Conhecimento, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. https://repositorio.ufmg.br/handle/1843/50212
Ross-Hellauer, Tony (2017). “What is open peer review? A systematic review”. F1000Research, v. 6, p. 588. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.1
Ross-Hellauer, Tony; Deppe, Arvid; Schmidt, Birgit (2017). “Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers”. Plos one, v. 12, n. 12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189311
Schmidt, Birgit; Ross-Hellauer, Tony; Van-Edig, Xenia; Moylan, Elizabeth C. (2018). “Ten considerations for open peer review”. F1000Research, v. 7. https://f1000research.com/articles/7-969/v1
Segado-Boj, Francisco; Martín-Quevedo, Juan; Prieto-Gutiérrez, Juan-José (2018). “Attitudes toward open access, open peer review, and altmetrics among contributors”. Journal of scholarly publishing, v. 50, n. 1, pp. 48-70. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.50.1.08
Silva, Kleisson Lainnon Nascimento da; Garcia, Joana Coeli Ribeiro; Targino, Maria das Graças (2021). “Efetivação da open peer review frente aos editores do Portal de Periódicos da Universidade Federal da Paraíba”. Revista brasileira de educação em ciência da informação, v. 8. https://doi.org/10.24208/REBECIN.V8I.281
Silveira, Lúcia da (2023). Políticas editoriais de periódicos no ecossistema da ciência aberta: impactos da avaliação por pares aberta, preprint e dados abertos. Porto Alegre: Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Comunicação. http://hdl.handle.net/10183/265494
Stamm, Thomas; Meyer, Ulrich; Wiesmann Hans-Peter; Kleinheinz, Johannes; Cehreli, Murat; Cehreli, Zefer C. (2007). “A retrospective analysis of submissions, acceptance rate, open peer review operations, and prepublication bias of the multidisciplinary open access journal Head & Face Medicine”. Head & face medicine, v. 3, n. 1. https://head-face-med.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1746-160X-3-27
Targino, Maria das Graças; Garcia, Joana Coeli Ribeiro; Silva, Kleisson Lainnon Nascimento da (2020). “Avaliadores da área de ciência da informação frente à open peer review”. Revista interamericana de bibliotecología, v. 43, n. 1, eI3. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.rib.v43n1eI3
Tattersall, Andy (2015). “For what it’s worth - the open peer review landscape”. Online information review, v. 39, n. 5, pp. 649-663. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-06-2015-0182
Tennant, Jonathan P.; Dugan, Jonathan M.; Graziotin, Daniel; Jacques, Damien… et al. (2017). “A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review”. F1000Research, v. 6, n. 1151. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12037.1
Van-Rooyen, Susan; Godlee, Fiona (1999). “Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers’ recommendations: a randomised trial”. BMJ, v. 318, n. 7175, pp. 23-27. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23
Wang, Peiling; You, Sukjin; Manasa, Rath; Wolfram, Dietmar (2016). “Open peer review in scientific publishing: A web mining study of PeerJ authors and reviewers”. Journal of data and information science, v. 1, n. 4, pp. 60-80. https://doi.org/10.20309/jdis.201625
Wolfram, Dietmar; Wang, Peiling; Park, Hyoungjoo (2019). “Open peer review: The current landscape and emerging models”. In: XVII International conference on scientometrics & informetrics. Rome: ISSI. https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1058&context=utk_infosciepubs
Zendel, Oliver; Schörghuber, Matthias; Vignoli, Michela (2017). “Open peer review CMS support”. In: OpenSym ‘17: Proceedings of the 13th International symposium on open collaboration. New York: Association for Computing Machinery. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3125433.3125458
Zong, Qianjin; Xie, Yafen; Liang, Jiechun (2020). “Does open peer review improve citation count?” Evidence from a propensity score matching analysis of PeerJ. Scientometrics, v. 125, n. 1, pp. 607-623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03545-y
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Profesional de la información / Information Professional
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Dissemination conditions of the articles once they are published
Authors can freely disseminate their articles on websites, social networks and repositories
However, the following conditions must be respected:
- Only the editorial version should be made public. Please do not publish preprints, postprints or proofs.
- Along with this copy, a specific mention of the publication in which the text has appeared must be included, also adding a clickable link to the URL: http://www.profesionaldelainformacion.com
- Only the final editorial version should be made public. Please do not publish preprints, postprints or proofs.
- Along with that copy, a specific mention of the publication in which the text has appeared must be included, also adding a clickable link to the URL: http://revista.profesionaldelainformacion.com
Profesional de la información journal offers the articles in open access with a Creative Commons BY license.
