Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
J. Silva, J. Dobránszki (2015)
Problems with Traditional Science Publishing and Finding a Wider Niche for Post-Publication Peer ReviewAccountability in Research, 22
U. Pöschl (2012)
Multi-Stage Open Peer Review: Scientific Evaluation Integrating the Strengths of Traditional Peer Review with the Virtues of Transparency and Self-RegulationFrontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6
J. Silva, V. Katavić (2016)
Free editors and peers: squeezing the lemon dryEthics & Bioethics, 6
S. Rooyen, T. Delamothe, S. Evans (2010)
Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trialThe BMJ, 341
Christopher Lee (2011)
Open Peer Review by a Selected-Papers NetworkFrontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6
(2016)
Science watchdogs
Richard Walker, Pascal Silva (2015)
Emerging trends in peer review—a surveyFrontiers in Neuroscience, 9
J. Silva, Aceil Al-Khatib (2019)
The ClarivateTM Analytics acquisition of Publons – an evolution or commodification of peer review?Research Ethics, 15
J. Silva, Aceil Al-Khatib, J. Dobránszki (2017)
Fortifying the Corrective Nature of Post-publication Peer Review: Identifying Weaknesses, Use of Journal Clubs, and Rewarding Conscientious BehaviorScience and Engineering Ethics, 23
T. Silva, A. Jaime (2017)
Fake peer reviews, fake identities, fake accounts, fake data: beware!AME Medical Journal, 2
Aceil Al-Khatib, J. Silva (2016)
What Rights Do Authors Have?Science and Engineering Ethics, 23
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to assess what the challenges to open peer review (OPR) are, relative to traditional peer review (TPR).Design/methodology/approachBy examining select issues within peer review, more broadly, and challenges within TPR, the effectiveness of OPR is questioned.FindingsAlthough OPR brings an aspect of transparency, by partially eliminating biases, fear of reprisals and of professional blow-back, either by authors who may be criticized or by competitors, limits the expansion of this peer review model, or its adoption as an industry-wide standard.Originality/valueOpen Science 2.0 boasts of greater openness and transparency and OPR is touted as one tool to achieve this. However, that potential is limited. This limitation needs to be recognized.
Online Information Review – Emerald Publishing
Published: Apr 8, 2019
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.