I don’t have an ORCID Haven’t registered yet?

Peer review is an important part of scientific discourse and often significantly improves the quality and accuracy of publications. However, it is usually hidden: in most journals, the review process happens behind the scenes, with anonymous reviewers, and only the end result – the final article – is available to readers. What happens when this process is open?

At F1000Research, articles are published prior to peer review once they have passed internal quality control, focusing on readability, ethical issues, availability of data and other basic criteria. Invitational peer review then begins and is completely open, so readers can follow the process and discussion around the article: peer review reports are published alongside © of the article as soon as they arrive, with the name of the proofreader. Authors can upload one or more revised versions of the article and respond directly to reviewers, who in turn can provide more feedback on the revisions.

The concept of open peer review is not new and can take many different forms: the BMJ pioneered non-anonymous peer review as early as 1999. ©rie BMC Quickly went a step further by revealing the names of reviewers to their authors during peer review and publishing the names of referees and their paper reports that ended up being released. Many other publishers have since responded to demands for more transparency and opened up peer review, making it sometimes mandatory, sometimes optional, to appoint arbitrators.

It is often feared that open peer review will lead reviewers to be less critical than anonymous reviewers, although this is not what the BMJ Randomized Controlled Trial has shown: reviewers who knew their names would be given to the authors were no more likely to recommend the publication than reviewers who knew they could recommend anonymously. Being asked to sign their review report, especially if the review is public on the article page, may actually encourage reviewers to be constructive and more objective, and reviewers may actually grant more attention to the quality of their advice in an open process of peer review.

We certainly saw very critical, yet constructive and thoughtful referees on F1000Research. In fact, some reviews end up being longer than the article! When Michael McCarthy thought he saw a critical error in an article he reviewed, he wanted to make sure his reviewer was clear; he included a full analysis – including software code – to get his point across. Since all referee reports in F1000Research are given a unique DOI, McCarthy’s analysis can now be quoted in its own right.

For reviewers, open review means they can take credit for all the hard work they put into the peer review and how they contributed. to improve the document. Critically reading articles and writing a constructive report takes a lot of time and effort, but with traditional “closed” peer review, only authors and editors will be aware of the input from referees. Many scholars have begun listing their activities as referees on Publications, where they can gain peer review approval for their peer review contributions.

Formal, standardized recognition for peer review activities will also come from an important development this week: F1000Research and other ORCID partners and the Consortia for Advancement Standards for Research Administration Information (CASRAI) begins to implement a ‘reviewed citation standard’ for the collection, storage and exchange of peer review information. Researchers can now reference review activity (for journals, funders, conferences or institutions) on their ORCID record. In the case of F1000Research, referees will be able to publish a quote from their report with one click via a link we will provide in an email.

By conducting the formal peer review (by invited experts) openly after publication, the wider scientific community can greatly benefit from the discussion between referees and authors. Traditionally, articles are published without the journal’s comments and presented as the last word on the subject. Authors often complain that to get the article accepted, they have to give in to the demands and interpretations of referees with whom they may not entirely agree. With an open post-publication peer review, a la F1000Research, the debate between the authors and invited experts is an integral part of the publication. In case of controversy, readers can decide for themselves which interpretation (if any!) they agree with – based on the arguments presented and perhaps in taking into account the expertise of the authors and the referees. For example, in an F1000Research article on the “self-medication” of bumblebees, eminent entomologist Marla Spivak adds her own opinion on the authors’ interpretation. With closed peer review, only the authors and editor would have seen his comments, whereas here possible alternative explanations or limitations of the study can be seen (and cited es) by readers as well.

Problems with published (and usually peer-reviewed) studies are now discussed on social media, but this form of peer review “Crowd” peers are often unrelated to the study itself, leaving readers of the article often unaware for long periods of any controversy. A group of bioinformaticians caused a stir recently when they raised their concerns on various social media channels about a specific PNAS paper from the ENCODE mouse project. In order to embed the discussion in the formal literature (indexed on PubMed), they published a reanalysis in F1000Research. One of the referees’ reports was read by over a thousand people, all in the context of the article (and the original ENCODE article that was under review meticulous). The referee’s request for further explanations encouraged a lively discussion with readers, authors and referees commenting further on the article. These additional comments are not part of the official (guest) peer review process, which ultimately determines whether an article is indexed by PubMed and other indexing services. but they help provide a more complete picture of research.

It is important to note that post-publication peer review allows release in versions and allows authors to respond (with a new version or by commenting) not only to referees but also to suggestions raised by reviewers. readers who have left comments on the article itself or if discussions arise elsewhere.

Ultimately, F1000Research’s post-publication peer review means that articles become “living” documents of the ongoing research process and the scientific debate surrounding them. By making the reviewers’ reports public and incorporating them into the article itself (they are also included in the PDF and on PubMed Central, for example), peer review adds value that can be more widely appreciated while giving reviewers the credit they deserve for their contribution.

Making Peer Review More Transparent with Open Annotation September 13, 2017 In “Blog”

Recognition for Review: Who’s Doing What? September 20, 2016 In “Blog”

Peer Review Week – A Celebration! September 10, 2015 In “Blog”

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

.

what is the benefit of peer review apex