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
. 2012 Feb 21:6:9.
doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00009. eCollection 2012.

Maintaining live discussion in two-stage open peer review

Erik Sandewall  1
Affiliations

Maintaining live discussion in two-stage open peer review

Erik Sandewall. Front Comput Neurosci. .

Abstract

Open peer review has been proposed for a number of reasons, in particular, for increasing the transparency of the article selection process for a journal, and for obtaining a broader basis for feedback to the authors and for the acceptance decision. The review discussion may also in itself have a value for the research community. These goals rely on the existence of a lively review discussion, but several experiments with open-process peer review in recent years have encountered the problem of faltering review discussions. The present article addresses the question of how lively review discussion may be fostered by relating the experience of the journal Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence (ETAI) which was an early experiment with open peer review. Factors influencing the discussion activity are identified. It is observed that it is more difficult to obtain lively discussion when the number of contributed articles increases, which implies difficulties for scaling up the open peer review model. Suggestions are made for how this difficulty may be overcome.

Keywords: community peer review; live discussion; open peer review; two-stage peer review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Angell M., Kassirer J. P. (1991). The Ingelfinger rule revisited. N. Engl. J. Med. 325, 1371–137310.1056/NEJM199108153250712 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Benos D. J., Bashari E., Chaves J. M., Gaggar A., Kapoor N., LaFrance M., Mans R., Mayhew D., McGowan S., Polter A., Qadri Y., Sarfare S., Schultz K., Splittgerber R., Stephenson J., Tower C., Walton R. G., Zotov A. (2007). The ups and downs of peer review. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 31, 145–15210.1152/advan.00104.2006 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Editorial: Revolutionizing Peer Review? (2005). Nat. Neurosci. 8, 397.10.1038/nn0405-397 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Editorial Report: Nature’s Peer Review Trial (2006). Nature. 10.1038/nature05535 - DOI
    1. Frankel M. S., Elliott R., Blume M., Bourgois J.-M., Hugenholtz B., Lindquist M. G., Morris S., Sandewall E. (2000). Defining and certifying electronic publication in science. Learn. Publ. 13, 251–25810.1087/09531510050162093 - DOI

LinkOut - more resources