정보관리학회지 (Journal of the Korean Society for information Management)

  • 제37권4호
  • /
  • Pages.131-150
  • /
  • 2020
  • /
  • 1013-0799(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2586-2073(eISSN)
한국정보관리학회 (Korean Society for Information Management)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

메가 OA 학술지 국내 저자의 오픈 피어 리뷰 인식에 관한 연구

A Study on Open Peer Review Perception of Korean Authors in a Mega OA Journal

  • 김지영 (한국과학기술정보연구원) ;
  • 김현수 (성균관대학교 일반대학원 문헌정보학과) ;
  • 심원식 (성균관대학교 문헌정보학과)
  • 투고 : 2020.11.23
  • 심사 : 2020.12.12
  • 발행 : 2020.12.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구는 최근 학술지 출판에 있어 전통적인 동료 심사 방식의 문제점을 개선하기 위해 새롭게 시도되고 있는 오픈 피어 리뷰(OPR)에 대한 연구자의 인식을 파악하고자 대표적인 메가 오픈 액세스(OA) 학술지의 국내 저자를 대상으로 설문조사를 실시하고 그 결과를 분석하였다. 설문조사 대상은 국제적인 OA 학술지이며 메가학술지인 PLOS 학술지에 논문을 출판한 국내 교신 저자로 선정하였고, 설문조사는 온라인 설문으로 진행하였으며, 총 238명이 응답하였고 202개의 유효 설문을 대상으로 분석을 수행하였다. 수집된 설문 데이터에 대해 빈도 분석, 집단 간 평균 비교를 수행하여 통계분석을 하였다. 연구자의 연령, 연구경력, OPR 경험 유무 등에 따라 OPR에 대한 인식에 차이가 나타나는지 분석한 결과 44세 이하 연구자, 9년 이하의 연구경력을 갖는 연구자, OPR 참여 경험이 있는 연구자의 경우 OPR 인식에서 몇 가지 차이를 보였다. 44세 이하 연구자의 경우 현재 동료 심사 방식의 변화를 바라지만 OPR에 대해서는 적극적으로 수용하지 않고 있는 것으로 나타났다. 연구자가 OPR에 동의하지 않는 이유를 분석한 결과 객관성 결여, 심사자 부담 증가, 감정 및 관계 문제를 제기하였고, 잊혀질 권리도 필요하다고 응답하였다.

This study was conducted to ascertain a better understanding of researchers' perception of open peer review (OPR), which is being attempted to improve the problems of traditional peer review methods in recent journal publications. A survey was conducted on the Korean authors of a mega open access (OA) journals and the results were analyzed. The subjects of the survey were selected as Korean corresponding authors published on PLOS, an international OA journal and mega journal. The survey was conducted as an online questionnaire and a total of 238 responses were collected; the analysis was based on 202 valid responses. Data were analyzed by performing frequency analysis and average comparison between groups for the collected questionnaire results. As a result of analyzing whether there is a difference in perception of OPR depending on the age, research experience, and OPR experience of the researcher, researchers under the age of 44, researchers with research experience of 9 years or less, and researchers with OPR participation experience had differences in some OPR perceptions. Results show that researchers under the age of 44 want to change the current peer review approach, but they are not yet actively accepting OPR. As a result of analyzing the reasons why the researcher disagrees with OPR, they raised questions about lack of objectivity, increased burden of reviewers, emotions and relationships, and responded that the right to be forgotten was also necessary.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Kim, H., & Lee, J. (2014). A study of Open Peer Review as new Peer Review. In 2014 Conference of Korea Society for Information Management, 11(1), e0147913.
  2. Shim, W., An, B. G., Park, S. E., & Kim, H. S. (2020). A quantitative analysis on PLOS ONE articles published by authors affiliated with Korean institutions. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 37(2), 47-69. https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2020.37.2.047
  3. Yoo, S. (2010). Case-oriented analysis of ethical problems in academic publishing & review process. Ethic Research, 76, 331-364. https://doi.org/10.15801/je.1.76.201003.331
  4. Almquist, M., Von Allmen, R. S., Carradice, D., Oosterling, S. J., McFarlane, K., & Wijnhoven, B. (2017). A prospective study on an innovative online forum for peer reviewing of surgical science. PloS one, 12(6), e0179031. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179031
  5. Benos, D. J., Bashari, E., Chaves, J. M., Gaggar, A., Kapoor, N., LaFrance, M., ... & Qadri, Y. (2007). The ups and downs of peer review. Advances in physiology education. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00104.2006
  6. Bohannon, J. (2013). Who's afraid of peer review?. 60-65. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.342.6154.60
  7. Burley, R. (2017). Peer review in the 21st. Information Services & Use, 37(3), 259-261. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-170850
  8. Csiszar, A. (2016). Peer review: Troubled from the start. Nature, 532(7599), 306-308. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/news/peer-review-troubled-from-the-start-1.19763 https://doi.org/10.1038/532306a
  9. DOAJ (2020). Retrieved from http://doaj.org
  10. Hengel, E. (2017). Publishing while female: Are women held to higher standards? Evidence from peer review. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.17548
  11. Johnson, R., Watkinson, A., & Mabe, M. (2018). The STM report. An overview of scientific and scholarly publishing. 5th edition October. Retrieved from https://www.stm-assoc.org/2018_10_04_STM_Report_2018.pdf
  12. Justice, A. C., Cho, M. K., Winker, M. A., Berlin, J. A., Rennie, D., & Peer Investigators (1998). Does masking author identity improve peer review quality?: A randomized controlled trial. Jama, 280(3), 240-242. Retrieved from https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/187758 https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.240
  13. Mahoney, M. J. (1977). Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1(2), 161-175. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01173636
  14. OASPA (n.d.). Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing [Internet]. The Hague: Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association; 2018 [cited 2018 Dec 17]. Retrieved from: https://oaspa.org/principles-of-transparency-and-best-practice-in-scholarly-publishing-3/
  15. Polka, J. K., Kiley, R., Konforti, B., Stern, B., & Vale, R. D. (2018). Publish peer reviews. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06032-w/
  16. Rath, M., & Wang, P. (2017, June). Open peer review in the era of open science: A pilot study of researchers' perceptions. In 2017 ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL) (pp. 1-2). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/JCDL.2017.7991608
  17. Rennie, D. (1998). Freedom and responsibility in medical publication: Setting the balance right. JAMA, 280(3), 300-302. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.300
  18. Ross-Hellauer T., & Gorogh, E. (2018). Application framework and transformation scenarios for open peer review. OpenUP Deliverable 3.3. Technical report.
  19. Ross-Hellauer, T. (2017). What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research, 6. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2
  20. Ross-Hellauer, T., & Gorogh, E. (2019). Guidelines for open peer review implementation. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 4(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0063-9
  21. Ross-Hellauer, T., Deppe, A., & Schmidt, B. (2017). Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers. PLOS ONE, 12(12), e0189311. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189311
  22. Schmidt, B. (2018). WOR: Wellcome Open Research-Exploration of year one data. Retrieved from https://github.com/gitti1/WOR
  23. Schmidt, B., Ross-Hellauer, T., van Edig, X., & Moylan, E. C. (2018). Ten considerations for open peer review. F1000Research, 7. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15334.1
  24. Smith, R. (1999). Opening up BMJ peer review: A beginning that should lead to complete transparency. BMJ, 318, 4-5. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7175.4
  25. Tattersall, A. (2015). For what it's worth-the open peer review landscape. Online Information Review, 39(5), 649-663. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-06-2015-0182
  26. Tennant, J. P., Dugan, J. M., Graziotin, D., Jacques, D. C., Waldner, F., Mietchen, D., ... & Masuzzo, P. (2017). A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review. F1000Research, 6. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12037.3
  27. Tite, L., & Schroter, S. (2007). Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 61(1), 9-12. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2006.049817
  28. Van Rooyen, S., Delamothe, T., & Evans, S. J. (2010). Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 341. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c5729
  29. Van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S., Black, N., & Smith, R. (1999). Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: A randomised trial. BMJ, 318(7175), 23-27. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23
  30. Wang, P., & Tahamtan, I., (2017). The state-of-the-art of open peer review: Early adopters, 80th Annual Meeting of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Washington, DC. Oct. 27-Nov. 1. 54(1): 819-820. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.2017.14505401170
  31. Weller, A. C. (1995). Editorial peer review: Research, current practices, and implications for librarians. Serials Review, 21(1), 53-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/0098-7913(95)90021-7
  32. Wicherts, J. M. (2016). Peer review quality and transparency of the peer-review process in open access and subscription journals. PLOS ONE, 11(1), e0147913. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147913
  33. Wicherts, J. M., Kievit, R. A., Bakker, M., & Borsboom, D. (2012). Letting the daylight in: Reviewing the reviewers and other ways to maximize transparency in science. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6, 20. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2012.00020