Journal practices (other than OA) promoting Open Science goals | Zenodo

“Journal practices (other than OA) promoting Open Science goals (relevance, reproducibility, efficiency, transparency)

Early, full and reproducible content

preregistration – use preregistrations in the review process
registered reports – apply peer review to preregistration prior to the study and publish results regardless of outcomes
preprint policy – liberally allow preprinting in any archive without license restrictions
data/code availability – foster or require open availability of data and code for reviewers and readers
TDM allowance – allow unrestricted TDM of full text and metadata for any use
null/negative results – publish regardless of outcome
 

Machine readable ecosystem

data/code citation – promote citation and use standards
persistent IDs – e.g. DOI, ORCID, ROR, Open Funder Registry, grant IDs
licenses (in Crossref) – register (open) licenses in Crossref
contributorship roles – credit all contributors for their part in the work
open citations – make citation information openly available via Crossref
 

Peer review

open peer review – e.g. open reports and open identities
peer review criteria – evaluate methodological rigour and reporting quality only or also judge expected relevance or impact?
rejection rates – publish rejection rates and reconsider high selectivity
post-publication peer review – publish immediately after sanity check and let peer review follow that?
 

Diversity

author diversity – age, position, gender, geography, ethnicity, colour
reviewer diversity – age, position, gender, geography, ethnicity, colour
editor diversity – age, position, gender, geography, ethnicity, colour

Metrics and DORA

DORA: journal metrics – refrain from promoting
DORA: article metrics – provide a range and use responsibly…”

In bid to boost transparency, bioRxiv begins posting peer reviews next to preprints | Science | AAAS

“BioRxiv, the server for life sciences preprints, has begun an experiment that allows select journals and independent peer-review services to publicly post evaluations of its papers should the authors make the request.

The idea is to make the peer-review process more transparent, and help authors more easily strengthen their manuscripts before they are submitted to journals. But some authors might balk at making critical reviews of their work available for anyone to read.

The experiment, called Transparent Review in Preprints, launched last week. To run it, bioRxiv has teamed with two publishers and two independent services that are providing peer reviews. In addition to increasing the transparency and usefulness of bioRxiv’s preprints, the initiative is also a platform to test models of “portable” peer reviews, or independent reviews that authors can share with any journal considering their work. (Traditionally, reviews are arranged and reviewed only by the journal considering a particular submission, not a third party.)…”

Cambridge journal aims for ‘radical new approach’ | Research Information

“A journal from Cambridge University Press (CUP) is aiming for a ‘radical new approach’ to both publishing and peer reviewing research.

Experimental Results aims to tackle the crisis in the reproducibility of results, to provide an outlet for standalone research that currently goes unpublished – and to make peer review faster, less onerous and more transparent.

Submissions are open for the journal, which will give researchers a place to publish valid, standalone results, regardless of whether those results are novel, inconclusive, negative or supplementary to other published work.

It will also publish the outcome of attempts to reproduce previously published experiments, including those that dispute past findings….”

Emerald Publishing joins Web of Science Group Initiative to Open Up Peer Review

“The Web of Science Group (a Clarivate Analytics company) has entered into a new partnership with Emerald Publishing, to pilot the industry’s first cross-publisher, scalable and transparent peer review workflow from Publons and ScholarOne across three of Emerald’s leading journals. 

Transparent peer review shows the complete peer review process from initial review to final decision, and has gained popularity with authors, reviewers and editors alike in recent years.

The new transparent peer review service will be rolled out across Online Information Review, Industrial Lubrication and Tribology and International Journal of Social Economics. The workflows ensure that alongside the published article, readers can access a comprehensive peer review history, including reviewer reports, editor decision letters and authors’ responses. Each of these elements is assigned its own digital object identified (DOI), which helps readers easily reference and cite the peer review content. Transparency can also aid teaching of best practice in peer review. The transparent peer review workflow complies with best-practice data privacy regulation, ensuring the individual preferences of authors, peer reviewers and journals are met….”

Emerald Publishing joins Web of Science Group Initiative to Open Up Peer Review

“The Web of Science Group (a Clarivate Analytics company) has entered into a new partnership with Emerald Publishing, to pilot the industry’s first cross-publisher, scalable and transparent peer review workflow from Publons and ScholarOne across three of Emerald’s leading journals. 

Transparent peer review shows the complete peer review process from initial review to final decision, and has gained popularity with authors, reviewers and editors alike in recent years.

The new transparent peer review service will be rolled out across Online Information Review, Industrial Lubrication and Tribology and International Journal of Social Economics. The workflows ensure that alongside the published article, readers can access a comprehensive peer review history, including reviewer reports, editor decision letters and authors’ responses. Each of these elements is assigned its own digital object identified (DOI), which helps readers easily reference and cite the peer review content. Transparency can also aid teaching of best practice in peer review. The transparent peer review workflow complies with best-practice data privacy regulation, ensuring the individual preferences of authors, peer reviewers and journals are met….”

Open Peer Review: a Model & an Invitation (2019 update) | Sustaining the Knowledge Commons / Soutenir les savoirs communs

This is a 2019 update of a post originally published in 2005 on The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics; the original is republished here. This version reflects experience with open peer review (mine and that of others), further reflection, and research conducted since 2005.

These are some ideas for open peer review that can be used today in experiments that may be helpful to shape future systemic approaches. The overall goal is to facilitate open research by opening up preprints, increase transparency in the peer review process, and to allow peer reviewers to take credit for their work. Interested authors and/or reviewers can experiment with this approach today. For example, an author can post a preprint in a repository, seek volunteer reviewers through a listserv or other social media service for a relevant scholarly community and/or ask a colleague to serve as an editor to coordinate the review process and/or serve as a contact for blind reviews….”

Open Scholar C.I.C. – Time to let research free!

We are a growing community of volunteer scholars, librarians, and open science enthusiasts working together to improve scholarly evaluation and communication….We advocate journal-independent peer review and develop tools to bring back the control of research evaluation to the academic community….”

Repositioning the Chemical Information Science… | F1000Research

Abstract:  The Chemical Information Science Gateway (CISG) of F1000Research was originally conceptualized as a forum for high-quality publications in chemical information science (CIS) including chemoinformatics. Adding a publication venue with open access and open peer review to the CIS field was a prime motivation for the introduction of CISG, aiming to support open science in this area. Herein, the CISG concept is revisited and the development of the gateway over the past four years is reviewed. In addition, opportunities are discussed to better position CISG within the publication spectrum of F1000Research and further increase its visibility and attractiveness for scientific contributions.

So, are early career researchers the harbingers of change? – Nicholas – 2019 – Learned Publishing – Wiley Online Library

Interestingly, open science, which is something that many ECRs are still only waking up to as a concept, is the next most unchanging aspect. The large gap between positive attitudes (30%) and more practice (14%) is partly explained by the fact that it is only just obtaining traction and partly because of fears over tenure and reputation. Take Spanish ECRs, for instance, where assessment policies and reputational concerns – absolutely critical, of course, to ECRs in obtaining secure employment – conspire to prevent the ready adoption of open science in practice. That is not to say that all ECRs are completely happy with all the component parts of open science. Thus, they tend not welcome the visibility open peer review brings with it as it could have reputational consequences, as one French ECR said: ‘Open Peer Review is tricky because you engage your own reputation as a reviewer’. Open data can be a poisoned chalice as well because ECRs do not want to give away their data until they have fully exploited it, as one Spanish ECR told us: ‘Sharing data is good for verification and reproducibility, but we should wait before we do this until they have been completely exploited to avoid losing our competitive edge’. Nevertheless, a number of counties (e.g. France and Poland) are rolling out open science national plans, and funders will expect compliance down the line….

Returning to the question posed at the very beginning of the study, whether ECRs are the harbingers of change, weighting up all the evidence, the answer has to be yes, albeit a slightly qualified yes. The drivers of change are social media, open science, and collaboration propelled by ECRs’ Millennium generation beliefs. …

Indeed, there may be plenty of papers exhorting ECRs to embrace open practices (Eschert, 2015; Gould, 2015; McKiernan et al., 2016), but no research robustly showing that ECRs are in fact rushing to do this. Of course, most of these studies predate the Harbingers study, so, maybe, things have changed in the interim, which explains why the results of this study, indicating that the scholarly walls have been breached in places, and ECRs have planted one foot in the future, is at odds with the research of many of our peers. …”

Transparent peer review and open data at Communications Biology | Communications Biology

“As of January 1st 2019, authors submitting manuscripts to Communications Biology can choose to publish the reviewer reports and author replies with their articles. The first articles with associated reviewer reports have now been published, representing an important step in our broader journey toward greater openness….

In addition, we ask that the data underlying plots and graphs in the main figures are available either in the supplementary materials or via an online generalist repository….Given the positive outcome of our trial, we are now making source data mandatory for published papers from today….”