1. Open Peer Review: a way towards a more transparent scholarly publishing system Edit Görögh University of Göttingen Hungarian National Workshop on Open Science 2017 Debrecen, November 7

2. Changing scholary communication discourse

3. dissemination of research results
Our mission
pening UP new methods, indicators and tools for…
peer review
dissemination of research results
impact
measurement
Topics .
Methodology
Analysis of available methods
User centered evaluation
Defining require-ments
Involving stakeholders
Arts and Humanities
Social sciences
Life sciences
Energy
Use cases
OpenUp aims to…
within the Open Science ecosystem.

4. Aims and activities Peer review landscape scan:
Map out the alternative review tools and services
Examine peer review in context of research flow and in different disciplinary settings
Develop a framework for evidece-based research on peer review.
Produce information resources.
Produce policy recommendations.
OpenUp hub (beta version)

5. Aims and activities
2. Contributing to the developing open science discourse
Create ties with other EU projects – aligning efforts in researching open peer review and open science practices.
Sharing taxonomies (FOSTER),
Building on previous research (OpenAIRE), developing collaborations.
Open science advocacy work: organizing workshops and webinars.

6. Challenges 1. Complicated publishing scene
Tennant, J doi: /f1000research
2. Competing definitions of (open) peer review
FORCE 2017, Berlin

7. Peer review re-defined
Quality assurance mechanism where scholarly works are scrutinised by peers/experts, whose feedback are used to improve the works
Manuscript IN
OUT
Objective: Mapping & promoting (Open) peer review mechanisms
Anonymous
Closed/Opaque
Selective (participation)
FORCE 2017, Berlin

8. Established review system
Lack of accountabbility
Lack of incentives
Quality control
Checking validitiy
Assessing originality and significance
Lengthy
Costly
Bias
Lack of standards
Abuse
Tansparency
Motivation
Democratization
Digital gap
Problems of open ID
SWOT
Wasted efforts
Inconsistencies
Open Peer Review

9. Defining open peer review
authors and reviewers are aware of each other's identity
review reports are published alonside the relevant article
wider community contributes to the review process
de-coupled from publishing: facilitated by a different organizational entity than the venue of publication
direct reciprocal discussion between author(s) and reviewers, between reviewers
Open
identity
Open Peer Review encompasses diverse constellations of many distinct aspects:
122 definitions collected and analysed
22 distinct configurations of 7 traits identified
Open
report
Open
participation
Open
platform
Open
interaction
Open pre-review manuscripts
manuscripts are made immediately available
in advance of any formal peer review procedures
Objective: Mapping & promoting (Open) peer review mechanisms
Open final-version commenting
review or commenting on final “version of record” publications
Ross-Hellauer, 2017, doi: /f1000research
FORCE 2017, Berlin

10. Alternative review services & platforms
Publishers
Publishing platforms
Independent review services
Repository based review platforms & tools
Review/Annotation applications

11. Publishing platforms Interactive peer review Collaborative peer review
Post-publication peer review

12. Decoupled review services

13. Preprint based publishing
Should researchers publish their findings before peer review?
By IVAN ORANSKY and ADAM MARCUS MAY 27, 2016

14. Changing discourse - Redefining roles
Changing role of editors
Growing responsibility of authors
Proactive reviewer stance
Involvement of peers

15. Growing demands Transparency 2017-11-07 OpenUp Survey 2017
Reasons behind the reservations with the established peer-review system and proportions of respondents rating then as ‘very important’ or ‘somewhat important’ Note: Responses to question ‘2.1b - How important are the below reasons behind your reservations with the established peer review system?’ N=[253 – 256]. The percentages show a share of respondents who chose ‘very important’ and ‘somewhat important’ answer categories.
OpenUp Survey 2017

16. Growing demands 3. Training young scholars Incentives to review
Crediting peer review
Publons, Peerage of Science
Peer review in academic promotion- recommendation of the OSI workgroup:
Address incentives and motivations to participate in peer review, not only in the context of rewards or credits for individuals but also in terms of the importance of peer review for promotion and tenure.
(Acreman 2016)
Training young scholars

17. Reluctance to participate
Reluctance governed by FEAR:
Ideas being stolen
Not being credited
Public humiliation
Abuse of power dynamics and intimidation
Empowerment of bad actors
Marginalization
Less honesty and criticism.
Source: Jon Tennant

18. Guidance Incentives Rewards Solutions Goal:
Lack of clarity over assessment of outputs and activities
Guidance
Lack of professional incentives for being open
Incentives
Hiring, promotions fail to account for oprn science activities
Rewards
Cultural shift in scholarly research/publishing
Evidence-based policies
Shifting power dynamics
Goal:
build a global community of Open Science based on sharing and collaborations
Source: Jon Tennant

19. Collaborative writing tools
Advance Open Science practices
Collaborative writing tools
Publishing platforms
Repositories
Altmetrics
Open ID
Source: Jeoren Bosman and Bianca Kramer,

20. Advance Open Science practices
Open peer review oath
Principle 1: I will sign my name to my review
Principle 2: I will review with integrity
Principle 3: I will treat the review as a discourse with you; in particular, I will provide constructive criticism
Principle 4: I will be an ambassador for the practice of open science

21. Data should be made publicly available.
In case some data or materials are not open, clear reasons (e.g., legal, ethical constraints, or severe impracticality) should be given why.
Documents containing details for interpreting any files or code, and how to compile and run any software programs should be made available with the above items.
The location of all of these files should be advertised in the manuscript, and all files should be hosted by a reliable third party. 

22. Move toward greater inclusiveness by encouraging wider participation.
Move toward greater transparency to improve accountability and minimize bias.
Move toward greater inclusiveness by encouraging wider participation.
Identify new approaches that lessen rather than increase the burden of re­viewing and decrease the waste of reviewer’s time.
Conduct more evidence-based anal­yses of different forms of peer review.
Address incentives and motivations to participate 
OSI2016 Peer Review workgroup

23. Source: Tony Ross-Hellauer https://www. slideshare

24. Thank you!
Thanks to Tony Ross-Hellauer and Jon Tennant for slides
More information:
Edit Görögh

25. References
Novel Models for Open Peer Review OpenAIRE2020 report.
Open Science Monitor EC Research and Innovation. Accessed on May 30, 2017:
Peer Review Survey (follow-up study of PRC 2008)
Ross-Hellauer, 2017, “What is open peer review? A systematic review”, F1000Research. DOI: /f1000research
Ross-Hellauer, T Disambiguating post-publication peer review. OpenAIRE blog. Accessed on Sept. 14, 2016:
Stančiauskas, V. and Banelytė, V. (2017). OpenUP survey on researchers' current perceptions and practices in peer review, impact measurement and dissemination of research results. Accessed on May 3, DOI: /zenodo
Tennant JP, Dugan JM, Graziotin D et al. A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review [version 1; referees: 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2017, 6:1151. DOI:  /f1000research