Display options
Cite
Besançon L, Rönnberg N, Löwgren J, et al. Open up: a survey on open and non-anonymized peer reviewing. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2020;5:8doi: 10.1186/s41073-020-00094-z.
Besançon, L., Rönnberg, N., Löwgren, J., Tennant, J. P., & Cooper, M. (2020). Open up: a survey on open and non-anonymized peer reviewing. Research integrity and peer review, 58. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00094-z
Besançon, Lonni, et al. "Open up: a survey on open and non-anonymized peer reviewing." Research integrity and peer review vol. 5 (2020): 8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00094-z
Besançon L, Rönnberg N, Löwgren J, Tennant JP, Cooper M. Open up: a survey on open and non-anonymized peer reviewing. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2020 Jun 26;5:8. doi: 10.1186/s41073-020-00094-z. eCollection 2020. PMID: 32607252; PMCID: PMC7318523.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Res Integr Peer Rev. 2020 Jun 26;5:8. doi: 10.1186/s41073-020-00094-z. eCollection 2020.

Open up: a survey on open and non-anonymized peer reviewing.

Research integrity and peer review

Lonni Besançon, Niklas Rönnberg, Jonas Löwgren, Jonathan P Tennant, Matthew Cooper

Affiliations

  1. Linköping University, Norrköping, Sweden.
  2. Université Paris Sud, Orsay, France.
  3. Southern Denmark University Library, Campusvej 55, Odense, 5230 Denmark.
  4. Center for Research and Interdisciplinarity, Universite de Paris, Rue Charles V, Paris, France.
  5. Institute for Globally Distributed Open Research and Education, Ubud, Indonesia.

PMID: 32607252 PMCID: PMC7318523 DOI: 10.1186/s41073-020-00094-z

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.

© The Author(s) 2020.

Keywords: Open science; Peer review

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. Front Neurosci. 2015 May 27;9:169 - PubMed
  2. PLoS One. 2017 Dec 13;12(12):e0189311 - PubMed
  3. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph. 2013 Dec;19(12):2818-27 - PubMed
  4. Surg Endosc. 2012 Aug;26(8):2275-80 - PubMed
  5. PLoS One. 2010 Apr 08;5(4):e10072 - PubMed
  6. Ann Emerg Med. 1998 Sep;32(3 Pt 1):310-7 - PubMed
  7. Chimia (Aarau). 2010;64(1-2):72-7 - PubMed
  8. JAMA. 2006 Apr 12;295(14):1675-80 - PubMed
  9. J Clin Invest. 1978 Jun;61(6):1697-701 - PubMed
  10. Nature. 2017 Jun 14;546(7658):352 - PubMed
  11. Nature. 2016 Apr 21;532(7599):306-8 - PubMed
  12. J Adv Nurs. 2008 Oct;64(2):131-8 - PubMed
  13. Med Educ. 2005 Jan;39(1):90-7 - PubMed
  14. JAMA. 1990 Mar 9;263(10):1371-6 - PubMed
  15. Conserv Biol. 2015 Feb;29(1):297-9 - PubMed
  16. Br J Psychiatry. 2000 Jan;176:47-51 - PubMed
  17. Can Med Assoc J. 1984 Nov 1;131(9):1007-8 - PubMed
  18. Science. 1946 Jun 7;103(2684):677-80 - PubMed
  19. Trends Ecol Evol. 2008 Jan;23(1):4-6 - PubMed
  20. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009 Jul;93(7):881-4 - PubMed
  21. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2018 Oct 1;365(19): - PubMed
  22. Trends Biotechnol. 2002 Aug;20(8):357-8 - PubMed
  23. J Med Internet Res. 2004 Sep 29;6(3):e34 - PubMed
  24. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph. 2017 Jan;23(1):881-890 - PubMed
  25. Trends Ecol Evol. 2012 Apr;27(4):189-90 - PubMed
  26. PLoS One. 2017 Oct 9;12(10):e0186111 - PubMed
  27. Elife. 2017 Mar 21;6: - PubMed
  28. JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):240-2 - PubMed
  29. F1000Res. 2017 Jul 20;6:1151 - PubMed
  30. BMJ. 2004 Mar 20;328(7441):673 - PubMed
  31. F1000Res. 2017 Apr 27;6:588 - PubMed
  32. JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):234-7 - PubMed
  33. Nat Commun. 2019 Jan 18;10(1):322 - PubMed
  34. BMC Med. 2010 Mar 22;8:17 - PubMed
  35. J Am Assoc Nurse Pract. 2018 Jan;30(1):1-2 - PubMed
  36. JAMA. 1994 Jul 13;272(2):96-7 - PubMed
  37. Adv Physiol Educ. 2007 Jun;31(2):145-52 - PubMed
  38. Med Educ. 2006 Sep;40(9):832-9 - PubMed

Publication Types