Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Jan 9:4:6.
doi: 10.12688/f1000research.6005.2. eCollection 2015.

Open peer review at four STEM journals: an observational overview

Emily Ford  1
Affiliations

Open peer review at four STEM journals: an observational overview

Emily Ford. F1000Res. .

Abstract

Open peer review, peer review where authors' and reviewers' identities are disclosed to one another, is a growing trend in scholarly publishing. Through observation of four journals in STEM disciplines, PLOS One, Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics, PeerJ, and F1000Research, an observational overview is conducted. The overview relies on defined characteristics of open peer review. Results show that despite differing open peer review implementations, each journal retains editorial involvement in scholarly publishing. Further, the analysis shows that only one of these implementations is fully transparent in its peer review and decision making process. Finally, the overview contends that journals should clearly outline peer review and editorial processes in order to allow for open peer review to be better understood and adopted by authors, reviewers, editors, and readers of science communications.

Keywords: open peer review; peer review; scholarly communication; scholarly publishing; science communication.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. The author has no affiliation with any of the journals discussed in this article.

References

    1. Binfield P: Referee Report For: Open peer review at four STEM journals: an observational overview [v1; ref status: indexed, http://f1000r.es/4yi]. F1000Res. 2015;4:6 10.5256/f1000research.6426.r7269 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bohannon J: Who’s afraid of peer review? Science. 2013;342(6154):60–65. 10.1126/science.342.6154.60 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Boldt A: Extending ArXiv.org to Achieve Open Peer Review and Publishing. J scholarly Publ. 2011;42(2):238–242. 10.3138/jsp.42.2.238 - DOI
    1. Bornmann L, Daniel HD: Reliability of reviewers’ ratings when using public peer review: a case study. Learn Publ. 2010;23(2):124–131. 10.1087/20100207 - DOI
    1. Cope WW, Kalantzis M: Signs of epistemic disruption: Transformations in the knowledge system of the academic journal. First Monday. 2009;14(4–6). 10.5210/fm.v14i4.2309 - DOI

LinkOut - more resources