Data exchange standards to support and acknowledge peer‐review activity

• Peer review is used to evaluate research, including publications, scientific awards, and grant proposals, and there is a continuum of at least six approaches to review from completely closed, double‐blind review to fully‐open and citable peer review.
• It is getting harder to find suitable experts to serve as reviewers so publishers and others are experimenting with methods to incentivize researcher participation, with a growing interest in enabling citation of peer‐review activity as a component.
• A Working Group on Peer Review Service, facilitated by CASRAI, was created to develop a data model and citation standard for peer‐review activity that can be used to support both existing and new review models.
• Standardized citation structures for reviews can enable the inclusion of peer‐review activity in personal recognition and evaluation, as well the ability to refer to reviews as part of the scholarly literature.

     

Double anonymity in peer review within the chemistry periodicals community

Surveys of the opinions of the scientific community on types of peer‐review system, especially the use of double anonymity, remain sparse. This work has canvassed the opinion of 1,439 editors‐in‐chief, editors and editorial board members of journals by all major publishers in chemistry, on the use of double anonymity in the peer‐review process. This is the first time such a survey has been conducted within the chemistry periodicals community. Data were gathered by means of an e‐mail questionnaire, the response rate to which was 25.7%. The results of the study are presented. Analysis of the data, with some supporting discussion, is provided.     

Post‐publication filtering and evaluation: Faculty of 1000

Faculty of 1000 ( www.facultyof1000.com ) is a new on‐line literature awareness and assessment service of research papers, on the basis of selections by 1400 of the world's top biologists, that combines metrics with judgement. The service offers a systematic and comprehensive form of post‐publication peer review that focuses on the best papers regardless of the journal in which they are published. It is now possible to draw some conclusions about how this new form of post‐publication peer review meets the needs of scientists, and the organizations that fund them, in practice. In addition, inferences about the relative importance of journals are set out, which should also interest publishers and librarians.     

Is peer review still the content industry's upper house?

Key points

• Although ‘peer review’ has quasi‐sacred status, times are changing, and peer review is not necessarily a single and uniformly reliable gold standard.
• For publishers, peer review is a process not an outcome.
• Academics understand peer review, but are often ignorant about the quality checking mechanisms within wider publishing.
• Self‐publishing has led to the much wider availability of publishing services – these now being used by all stakeholders in publishing.
• How should universities evaluate comment and ideas that were first disseminated within a non‐academic market?
• Rather than an upper house, is peer review today more of a galley kitchen?

     

Peer review: The experience and views of early career researchers

This paper presents selected findings from the first year of a 3‐year longitudinal study of early career researchers (ECRs), which sought to ascertain current and changing habits in scholarly communication. Specifically, the aims of the paper are to show: (1) how much experience and knowledge ECRs had of peer review – both as authors and as reviewers; (2) what they felt the benefits were and what suggestions they had for improvement; (3) what they thought of open peer review (OPR); and (4) who they felt should organize peer review. Data were obtained from 116 science and social science ECRs, most of whom had published and were subject to in‐depth interviews conducted face‐to‐face, via Skype, or over the telephone. An extensive literature review was also conducted to provide a context and supplementary data for the findings. The main findings were that: (1) most ECRS are well informed about peer review and generally like the experience, largely because of the learning experiences obtained; (2) they like blind double‐peer review, but would like some improvements, especially with regards to reviewer quality; (3) most are uncomfortable with the idea of OPR; and (4) most would like publishers to continue organizing peer review because of their perceived independence.     

Data protection and peer review

The consequences for publishers of a conflict between the traditional anonymity of peer review and the requirements of data‐protection legislation are discussed and appropriate policies for the new situation are proposed.     

A New Method and Metric to Evaluate the Peer Review Process of Scholarly Journals

This paper will propose a new system that produces a metric that is an indicator of the level of peer review conducted prior to the publication of scholarly material. A mathematical algorithm which incorporates weighted values of the roles within the peer review process is created. The h-index, which is a value that “measures the productivity and impact of a scientist or scholar,” is also incorporated. Each round of review is weighted using the square root as later rounds of peer review are often less rigorous than earlier rounds. Once a paper is accepted the calculation is conducted and a “peer review evaluation” metric, or “Peer Review Evaluation Score” (pre-SCORE) is available. It is clear that such a metric would prove beneficial to all engaged parties (authors, publishers, readers, libraries). Authors will know that their work is being evaluated by a trustworthy publication and by experts in their field. Legitimate, ethical publishers will be recognized as such. Readers would have the ability to filter out material which was not properly vetted, and libraries/consortia would have further assurance that their limited funds are spent wisely. Future studies to see if there is a correlation between the pre-SCORE and Impact Factor or highly cited material is possible. The proposed metric would be one more tool available to aid in the discovery of quality published research.     

Beyond online preprints: formalization of open initiatives in China

A growing number of online journals and academic platforms are adopting light peer review or ‘publish then filter’ models of scholarly communication. These approaches have the advantage of enabling instant exchanges of knowledge between academics and are part of a wider search for alternatives to traditional peer review and certification processes in scholarly publishing. However, establishing credibility and identifying the correct balance between communication and scholarly rigour remains an important challenge for digital communication platforms targeting academic communities. This paper looks at a highly influential, government‐backed, open publishing platform in China: Science Paper Online, which is using transparent post‐publication peer‐review processes to encourage innovation and address systemic problems in China's traditional academic publishing system. There can be little doubt that the Chinese academic publishing landscape differs in important ways from counterparts in the United States and Western Europe. However, this article suggests that developments in China also provide important lessons about the potential of digital technology and government policy to facilitate a large‐scale shift towards more open and networked models of scholarly communication.     

同行评审的新趋势

为避免传统同行评审形式出现的诸多弊端,学术出版界不断探索新的同行评议方法,出现了诸多的创新。本文主要对当前正在尝试的新兴同行评审方法进行调查,并介绍相关经验。这些创新方法包括开放性同行评审、非选择性同行评审、开放预审稿件的公众评审、便携式同行评审、反弹式同行评审、背书式同行评审。调查结果显示,同行评审实践发生了巨大的变化,与互联网革命和开放获取出版紧密相关,科学出版商为作者提供了更多的选择,新的同行评议形式为学术交流注入了新的活力。     

The role of learned societies in national scholarly publishing

This study examines the role of learned societies as publishers in Finland based on bibliographic information from two Finnish databases. We studied the share of learned societies' peer‐reviewed publication channels (serials with ISSNs and book publishers with distinct ISBN roots) and outputs (journal articles, conference articles, book articles, and monographs) in Finland. We also studied the share of learned societies' open access (OA) publications. In 2018, there were 402 peer‐reviewed publication channels in Finland. In 2011–2017, the number of peer‐reviewed publications from scholars working in Finnish universities and published in Finland was 17,724. Learned societies publish around 70% of these channels and publications, mostly in the fields of humanities and social sciences. Learned societies in Finland focus on journal publishing, whereas university presses and commercial publishers focus on book publishing. In 2016–2017, 38.4% of the learned societies' outputs were OA. This study concludes that Finnish learned societies play an integral part in national scholarly publishing. They play an especially important role in journal publishing, as commercial publishers produce only 2.6% of Finnish journals and book series, and only 1.4% of the journal articles from scholars working in Finnish universities.     

数字出版时代科技期刊利用电子商务平台营销的构想

科技期刊出版业由传统的出版与经营管理转变为数字化出版,利用电子商务平台进行数字化、网络化营销已成为科技期刊的发展方向.认为:可开展基于科技期刊自建网站的电子商务营销;通过专业的电子商务平台开通科技期刊的旗舰营销店,实现科技期刊的多元化、多渠道的电子商务营销;通过手机付费平台进行科技期刊的网络化营销.科技期刊利用电子商务平台营销过程中需重视多方合作并加强管理,加强电子商务平台的内容建设及服务营销,加大培养电子商务专业化营销与管理人才的力度,不断扩大科技期刊的社会效益与经济效益.     

Open access megajournals: The publisher perspective (Part 1: Motivations)

This paper is the first of two Learned Publishing articles in which we report the results of a series of interviews with senior publishers and editors exploring open access megajournals (OAMJs). Megajournals (of which PLoS One is the best known example) represent a relatively new approach to scholarly communication and can be characterized as large, broad‐scope, open access journals that take an innovative approach to peer review, basing acceptance decisions solely on the technical or scientific soundness of the article. This model is often said to support the broader goals of the open science movement. Based on in‐depth interviews with 31 publishers and editors representing 16 different organizations (10 of which publish a megajournal), this paper reports how the term ‘megajournal’ is understood and publishers’ rationale and motivations for launching (or not launching) an OAMJ. We find that while there is general agreement on the common characteristics of megajournals, there is not yet a consensus on their relative importance. We also find seven motivating factors that were said to drive the launch of an OAMJ and link each of these factors to potential societal and business benefits. These results suggest that the often polarized debate surrounding OAMJs is a consequence of the extent to which observers perceive publishers to be motivated by these societal or business benefits.     

From sailing boat to steamship: the role of the publisher in an open access environment

The Internet has been a huge success in the academic world, as it makes it possible for academics to share and find research materials; open access has therefore become a fact of life for academic publishing. But what is the role of publishers in this new environment? The key functions of publishing – organizing peer review, editorial support, graphic design, marketing, and distribution of academic information – do not just disappear; publishers still have a role here, but they need to take a more service‐minded perspective. Academics still need to find ways to ensure the dissemination of their output; it is important that they realize that this will cost money, whether it is brought in‐house or outsourced. The IMISCOE project, on which Amsterdam University Press has recently embarked, offers an entirely new publishing model oriented towards online dissemination of academic research results, as well as in book form.     

Crowdsourcing: A Platform for Crowd Engagement in the Publishing Industry

Publishers will usually make decisions based on their experience and knowledge in book publishing. However, there are risks of losses as markets can be unpredictable. Now, with the availability of various online social platforms, “crowdsourcing” is being used by publishers and authors to gather new ideas and innovations. This article will analyze how the crowdsourcing platform is used by industry players to attract active participation from the public, especially in the title development process. Publishers or authors also need to understand which platform is appropriate and how to use the platforms as a marketing communication tool. The netnography approach will be used to gather and analyze the data related to the specific subject area of the study, including literature review and online observation. Based on our observations, platforms such Wattpad and Ilham Karangkraf are popular among Malaysian authors and publishers, and had been used to get crowd engagement as well as to communicate with readers. With it, sometimes a work that has many readers or followers will be published.     

第三方开放同行评议模式研究

第三方开放同行评议逐步成为开放科学环境下预印本质量控制的有效途径和学术期刊同行评议的有益补充。本文对第三方开放同行评议的发展历程进行梳理,将第三方开放同行评议服务的开展方式归纳为第三方平台的评议和出版服务、预印本平台采用的第三方服务以及学术期刊采用的第三方服务3种主要形式。在此基础上,从评议对象与评议内容呈现方式、评议质量控制机制、评议人激励机制、学术社区建设等方面对第三方开放同行评议模式的特点进行分析,阐述其优越性,并结合国内同行评议现状总结该模式对我国业界的启示与借鉴。     

基于质量和时效兼顾的数字出版同行评议新行为研究

面对数字出版环境中同行评议存在的诸多问题,办刊机构从审稿流程、出版模式、审稿手段、审稿方式方面作了多样化的尝试和调整,并在此基础上形成了对办刊人员、审稿人、作者、读者等参与者的新要求,以保障同行评议在质量和时效2方面实现兼顾。