-
1Academic Journal
Συγγραφείς: E. V. Tikhonova, L. K. Raitskaya, Е. В. Тихонова, Л. К. Раицкая
Πηγή: Science Editor and Publisher; Vol 6, No 1 (2021); 6-17 ; Научный редактор и издатель; Vol 6, No 1 (2021); 6-17 ; 2541-8122 ; 2542-0267 ; 10.24069/2542-0267-2021-1
Θεματικοί όροι: механизмы, types, open peer review, post-publication peer review, preprints, stakeholders, double blind peer review, organization, functions, mechanisms, типы, открытое рецензирование, постпубликационное рецензиро- вание, препринты, стейкхолдеры, двойное слепое рецензирование, организация, функции
Περιγραφή αρχείου: application/pdf
Relation: https://www.scieditor.ru/jour/article/view/149/119; Peters M. A., Brighouse S., Tesar M., Sturm S., Jackson L. The open peer review experiment in Educational Philosophy and Theory (EPAT). Educational Philosophy and Theory. 2020. DOI:10.1080/00131857.2020.1846519; Besançon L., Rönnberg N., Löwgren J., Tennant J. P., Cooper M. Open up: a survey on open and non- anonymized peer reviewing. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2020;5:8. DOI:10.1186/s41073-020-00094-z; Mehmani B. Pilot designed to help reviewers win recognition leads to better quality reviews, say editors. Editors’ update. Available at: https://www.elsevier.com/editors-update/story/peer-review/pilot-designed-to-help-reviewers-win-recognition-for-their-work-leads-to-better-quality-reviews,-say-editors; Koutsoyiannis D., Kundzewicz Z. W. Challenging conventional wisdom and the conventional peer- review system – a recent experience. 2020. Available at: https://www.itia.ntua.gr/blog/2020/12/11/challenging-conventional-wisdom-and-the-conventional-peer-review-system/; Mulligan A., Hall L., Raphael E. Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2012;64(1):132–161. DOI:10.1002/asi.22798; Zhang D., Smith R., Lobo S. Should you sign your reviews? Open peer review and review quality. Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 2020;13(1):45–47. DOI:10.1017/iop.2020.5; McDowell G. S., Knutsen J. D., Graham J. M., Oelker S. K., Lijek R. S. Co-reviewing and ghostwriting by early- career researchers in the peer review of manuscripts. eLife. 2019;8:e48425. DOI:10.7554/eLife.48425; Manchikanti L., Kaye A. D., Boswell M., Hirsch J.A. Medical journal peer review: Process and bias. Pain Physician. 2015;18(1):E1– E14. DOI:10.36076/ppj/2015.18.E1; Jefferson T., Rudin M., Brodney Folse S., Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Review. 2007;2:MR000016. DOI:10.1002/14651858.MR000016.pub3; Jubb M. Peer review: The current landscape and future trends. Learned Publishing. 2016;29(1):13–21. DOI:10.1002/leap.1008; Retraction. Journal of Enzyme Inhibition and Medicinal Chemistry. 2012;27(5):758. DOI:10.3109/14756366.2012.712024; SAGE statement on Journal of Vibration and Control. 2014. Available at: https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/press/sage-statement-on-journal-of-vibration-and-control; da Silva J. A. T., Bornemann-Cimenti H., Tsigaris P. Optimizing peer review to minimize the risk of retracting COVID-19-related literature. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. 2021;24(1):21–26. DOI:10.1007/ s11019-020-09990-z; Park J. Y. Is open peer review, a growing trend in scholarly publishing, a double-edged sword? Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. 2020;46(5):299–300. DOI:10.5125/jkaoms.2020.46.5.299; Pöschl U. Interactive open access publishing and public peer review: The effectiveness of transparency and self-regulation in scientific quality assurance. IFLA Journal. 2010;36(1):40–46. DOI:10.1177/0340035209359573; Groves T., Loder E. Prepublication histories and open peer review at the BMJ. BMJ. 2014;349:g5394. DOI:10.1136/bmj.g5394; Pharaon S. Open peer review: A route to democracy. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 2007;100(1):9. DOI:10.1258/jrsm.100.1.9-a; Ford E. Open peer review at four STEM journals: an observational overview [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research. 2015;4:6. DOI:10.12688/f1000research.6005.2; Ross-Hellauer T. What is open peer review? A systematic review [version 2; peer review: 4 approved].F1000Research. 2017;6:1–37. DOI:10.12688/f1000research.11369.2; Zong Q., Fan L., Xie Y., Huang J. The relationship of polarity of post-publication peer review to citation count: Evidence from Publons. Online Information Review. 2020;44(3):583–602. DOI:10.1108/OIR-01-2019-0027; Foxe J. J., Bolam P. Open review and the quest for increased transparency in neuroscience publication.European Journal of Neuroscience. 2017;45(9):1125–1126. DOI:10.1111/ejn.13541; Zong Q., Xie Y., Liang J. Does open peer review improve citation count? Evidence from a propensity score matching analysis of PeerJ. Scientometrics. 2020;125(1):607–623. DOI:10.1007/s11192-020-03545-y; Wolfram D., Wang P., Hembree A., Park H. Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science.Scientometrics. 2020;125(2):1033–1051. DOI:10.1007/s11192-020-03488-4; Morey R. D., Chambers C. D., Etchells P. J., Harris C. R., Hoekstra R., Lakens D., Lewandowsky S., Morey C. C., Newman D.P., Schönbrodt F. D., Vanpaemel W., Wagenmakers E.-J., Zwaan R. A. The peer reviewers’ openness initiative: Incentivizing open research practices through peer review. Royal Society Open Science. 2016;3(1):150547. DOI:10.1098/rsos.150547; Горбунова А. С., Засурский И. И., Трищенко Н. Д. Новые научные медиа: специфика платформ с от- крытым рецензированием. Вопросы теории и практики журналистики. 2021;10(1):22–38. DOI:10.17150/2308-6203.2021.10(1).22-38; Shoham N., Pitman A. Open versus blind peer review: Is anonymity better than transparency? BJPsych Advances. 2020:1–8. DOI:10.1192/bja.2020.61; Godlee F. Making reviewers visible: Openness, accountability, and credit. JAMA. 2002;287(21):2762–2765. DOI:10.1001/jama.287.21.2762; Schmidt B., Ross-Hellauer T., van Edig X., Moylan E. C. Ten considerations for open peer review [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research. 2018;7:969. DOI:10.12688/f1000research.15334.1; Moylan E. C., Harold S., O’Neill C., Kowalczuk M. K. Open, single-blind, double-blind: which peer review process do you prefer? BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology. 2014;15:55. DOI:10.1186/2050-6511-15-55; Galimberti P. Open science and evaluation. SCIRES-it. 2020;10:65–70. DOI:10.2423/i22394303v10Sp65; Walsh E., Rooney M., Appleby L., Wilkinson G. Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Psychiatry. 2000;176(1):47–51. DOI:10.1192/bjp.176.1.47; van Rooyen S., Delamothe T., Evans S. J. Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2010;341:c5729. DOI:10.1136/bmj.c5729; Lynam D.R., Hyatt C. S., Hopwood C. J., Wright A. G. C., Miller J. D. Should psychologists sign their reviews? Some thoughts and some data. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2019;128(6);541–546. DOI:10.1037/abn0000426; Khan K. Is open peer review the fairest system? No. BMJ. 2010;341:c6425. DOI:10.1136/bmj.c6425; Bucur C. I., Kuhn T., Ceolin D. A Unified Nanopublication Model for Effective and User-Friendly Access to the Elements of Scientific Publishing. In: Keet C. M., Dumontier M. (eds). Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management. EKAW 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 12387. Springer, Cham, pp. 104–119. DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-61244-3_7; Landhuis E. Scientific literature: information overload. Nature. 2016;535:457–458. DOI:10.1038/nj7612-457a; Wang P., Rath M., Deike M., Qiang W. Open peer review: An innovation in scientific publishing. In: IConference 2016 Proceedings. 2016. DOI:10.9776/16315; Спинс П., Видаль М. Э. Научное рецензирование. Лучшие практики и рекомендации. Ред. пер. с англ. Е. В. Тихонова, О. В. Кириллова. СПб.: Эко Вектор; 2021.; Тихонова Е. В. Международный форум «Peer Review Week 2020», 21–25 сентября 2020 г. Сессия Россий- ского отделения Европейской ассоциации научных редакторов (EASE) и Ассоциации научных редакторов и издателей (АНРИ), 24 сентября 2020 г., Москва, Россия. Научный редактор и издатель. 2020;5(2):135–144. DOI:10.24069/2542-0267-2020-2-135-144; Martínez-Saucedo M., Téllez-Camacho S., Aquino-Jarquín G., Sánchez-Urbina R., Granados-Riverón J. T. Post-publication peer review: another sort of quality control of the scientific record in biomedicine. La revisión por pares pospublicación: otro control de calidad del registro científico en biomedicina. Gaceta medica de Mexico. 2020;156(6):523–526. DOI:10.24875/GMM.M21000453; Topf J. M, Hiremath S. Social media, medicine and the modern journal club. International Review of Psychiatry. 2015;27(2):147–154. DOI:10.3109/09540261.2014.998991; Tracz V., Lawrence R. Towards an open science publishing platform [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research. 2016;5:1–10. DOI:10.12688/f1000research.7968.1; da Silva J.A. T. Reflection on the Fazlul Sarkar versus PubPeer (‘John Doe’) case. Science and Engineering Ethics. 2018;24(1):323–325. DOI:10.1007/s11948-016-9863-1; Yeo S. K., Liang X., Brossard D., Rose K. M., Korzekwa K., Scheufele D.A., Xenos M. A. The case of #arseniclife: Blogs and Twitter in informal peer review. Public Understanding of Science. 2017;26(8):937–952. DOI:10.1177/0963662516649806; Abdin A. Y., Nasim M. J., Ney Y., Jacob C. The Pioneering Role of Sci in Post Publication Public Peer Review (P4R). Publications. 2021;9(1):13. DOI:10.3390/publications9010013; Spezi V., Wakeling S., Pinfield S., Fry J., Creaser C., Willett P. “Let the community decide”? The vision and reality of soundness-only peer review in open-access mega-journals. Journal of Documentation. 2018;74(1):137–161. DOI:10.1108/JD-06-2017-0092; Jacob C., Rittman M., Vazquez F., Abdin A. Y. Evolution of Sci’s Community-Driven Post-Publication Peer-Review. Sci. 2019;1(1):16. DOI:10.3390/sci1010016.v1; Rittman M., Vazquez F. Sci – An Open Access Journal with Post-Publication Peer Review. Sci. 2019;1(1);1. DOI:10.3390/sci1010001; Baggs J. G., Broome M. E., Dougherty M. C., Freda M. C., Kearney M. H. Blinding in peer review: The preferences of reviewers for nursing journals. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2008;64(2):131–138. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04816.x; Patel J., Pierce M., Boughton S. L., Baldeweg S. E. Do peer review models affect clinicians’ trust in journals? A survey of junior doctors. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2017;2:11. DOI:10.1186/s41073-017-0029-8; Shashok K., Matarese V. Post-publication peer review in biomedical journals: overcoming obstacles and disincentives to knowledge sharing. Research Policy and Evaluation. 2018;6(1):1–16. DOI:10.13130/2282-5398/10125; Vazquez F., Lin S. K., Jacob C. Changing Sci from post-publication peer-review to single-blind peer-review. Sci. 2020;2(4):82. DOI:10.3390/sci2040082; https://www.scieditor.ru/jour/article/view/149