Open science cannot succeed without open peer review

Open Science principles have been a critical driver for change in scholarly communication. Opening up research publications has led to encouraging rates of growth of Open Access but it has now become evident that true and system-wide change will only come if all the publishing components are open...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal:	Giannis Tsakonas
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	openjournals.nl 2021
Materias:	open peer review open science Bibliography. Library science. Information resources Z
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/fbc43f09c6004ea88858c9f407ac7c60
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:fbc43f09c6004ea88858c9f407ac7c60
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:fbc43f09c6004ea88858c9f407ac7c602021-11-05T14:04:21ZOpen science cannot succeed without open peer review10.53377/lq.111142213-056Xhttps://doaj.org/article/fbc43f09c6004ea88858c9f407ac7c602021-11-01T00:00:00Zhttps://liberquarterly.eu/article/view/11114https://doaj.org/toc/2213-056X Open Science principles have been a critical driver for change in scholarly communication. Opening up research publications has led to encouraging rates of growth of Open Access but it has now become evident that true and system-wide change will only come if all the publishing components are open, including those at the production stages. We are seeing a growing demand to know more about how research papers qualify for publication and if we wish to engender more trust in scholarly outputs – trust within the scholarly communication community and trust of the wider public – we should listen carefully and seek to act on these demands. However, when an entire system has been fixed in its ways for many years, it is not easy to shake things up. In short, while it may be reasonable to ask for changes, not all of these will be welcomed or be embraced. Peer review is one of these publishing components. Regardless of the types and forms in each publication venue, it supposedly ensures that the intellectual work of an author has been checked, improved and qualified for publication after constructive dialogue among all participants; the author, the editor and the reviewers. We recognise it as an important process that validates the quality of a publication, which can be trusted by the reader and – as trusted – will be used in solving research problems and sometimes underpin changes in public policy. While the principles of peer review are still valid, in an Open Science system the current closed and entirely opaque operation of this system seems obsolete and even vicious. Masked by anonymisation and based on linearity this very regulated dialogue serves largely the prestige of publishing venues and individuals. Changes are needed, but we should acknowledge beforehand that changing peer review is a challenging exercise. The issues around peer review are complex, requiring alternative management of both the processes and the actors. Giannis Tsakonasopenjournals.nlarticleopen peer reviewopen scienceBibliography. Library science. Information resourcesZENLiber Quarterly: The Journal of European Research Libraries, Vol 31, Iss 1 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	open peer review open science Bibliography. Library science. Information resources Z
spellingShingle	open peer review open science Bibliography. Library science. Information resources Z Giannis Tsakonas Open science cannot succeed without open peer review
description	Open Science principles have been a critical driver for change in scholarly communication. Opening up research publications has led to encouraging rates of growth of Open Access but it has now become evident that true and system-wide change will only come if all the publishing components are open, including those at the production stages. We are seeing a growing demand to know more about how research papers qualify for publication and if we wish to engender more trust in scholarly outputs – trust within the scholarly communication community and trust of the wider public – we should listen carefully and seek to act on these demands. However, when an entire system has been fixed in its ways for many years, it is not easy to shake things up. In short, while it may be reasonable to ask for changes, not all of these will be welcomed or be embraced. Peer review is one of these publishing components. Regardless of the types and forms in each publication venue, it supposedly ensures that the intellectual work of an author has been checked, improved and qualified for publication after constructive dialogue among all participants; the author, the editor and the reviewers. We recognise it as an important process that validates the quality of a publication, which can be trusted by the reader and – as trusted – will be used in solving research problems and sometimes underpin changes in public policy. While the principles of peer review are still valid, in an Open Science system the current closed and entirely opaque operation of this system seems obsolete and even vicious. Masked by anonymisation and based on linearity this very regulated dialogue serves largely the prestige of publishing venues and individuals. Changes are needed, but we should acknowledge beforehand that changing peer review is a challenging exercise. The issues around peer review are complex, requiring alternative management of both the processes and the actors.
format	article
author	Giannis Tsakonas
author_facet	Giannis Tsakonas
author_sort	Giannis Tsakonas
title	Open science cannot succeed without open peer review
title_short	Open science cannot succeed without open peer review
title_full	Open science cannot succeed without open peer review
title_fullStr	Open science cannot succeed without open peer review
title_full_unstemmed	Open science cannot succeed without open peer review
title_sort	open science cannot succeed without open peer review
publisher	openjournals.nl
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/fbc43f09c6004ea88858c9f407ac7c60
work_keys_str_mv	AT giannistsakonas opensciencecannotsucceedwithoutopenpeerreview
_version_	1718444265271459840

Open science cannot succeed without open peer review

Ejemplares similares