Journal of the Korean Society for information Management (정보관리학회지)

Korean Society for Information Management (한국정보관리학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

An Investigation on the Features of Journals Implementing Open Peer Review

개방형 동료심사 제도 채택 학술지 현황과 특성에 관한 연구

  • 김나연 (이화여자대학교 일반대학원 문헌정보학과) ;
  • 정은경 (이화여자대학교 사회과학대학 문헌정보학과)
  • Received : 2024.02.27
  • Accepted : 2024.03.13
  • Published : 2024.03.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In an academic ecosystem evolving into open science, open peer review is gaining attention as a way to enhance transparency and openness in scholarly communication. This study examines the adoption of open peer review components in 118 open access journals that have implemented open peer review, and their characteristics by publisher type, country/continent, language, and discipline. Open peer review has been implemented in a variety of ways, including making review reports or pre-prints publicly available or disclosing the identities of authors and reviewers to each other. We also found differences in the components adopted across disciplines. It appears that commercial publishers, which account for a large proportion of publisher types, have generally adopted it, and it is mainly published in English in European countries. By discipline, we find more open peer review in the medical and natural sciences, which traditionally aim for open scholarly communication and fewer journals in the multidisciplinary and humanities. This provides insights into the adoption of open peer review by journals, as well as a better understanding of the characteristics of the academic community in terms of their adoption of open peer review.

오픈 과학으로 진화하는 학문 생태계 속에서 개방형 동료심사는 학술 커뮤니케이션의 투명성과 개방성을 강화하는 방안으로 주목받고 있다. 본 연구는 개방형 동료심사를 도입한 오픈액세스 학술지 118건을 대상으로 개방형 동료심사 제도 구성요소의 채택 현황과 출판사 유형, 국가·대륙별, 언어별, 학문 분야별 특성을 살펴보았다. 개방형 동료심사는 심사 보고서 또는 심사 전 논고를 공개하거나 저자와 심사자의 신원을 상호 간에 공개하는 등 다양한 방식으로 구현되었다. 또한 학문 분야별로 채택된 구성요소 간에 차이를 발견할 수 있었다. 출판사 유형별 비중이 큰 상업 출판사가 대체로 많이 채택한 것으로 나타났으며, 주로 유럽에 속하는 국가에서 영어로 발행되는 현황이다. 분야별로 살펴보면, 전통적으로 개방적인 학술 커뮤니케이션을 지향하는 의약학, 자연과학 분야에서 더욱 활발한 개방형 동료심사 제도를 찾아볼 수 있었던 반면, 복합학, 인문학 분야에서는 소수의 학술지를 찾아볼 수 있다. 이를 통해 개방형 동료심사 제도의 학술지 채택 현황을 파악할 수 있으며, 개방형 동료심사제도 채택에 따른 학술 커뮤니티의 특성에 대한 이해를 높일 수 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. Bar-Ilan, J., Haustein, S., Milojevic, S., Peters, I., & Wolfram, D. (2018). Peer review, bibliometrics and altmetrics-Do we need them all?. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 55(1), 653-656. http://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.2018.14505501073 
  2. Belluz, J., Plumer, B., & Resnick, B. (2016). The 7 Biggest Problems Facing Science, According to 270 Scientists. Vox. Available: http://www.vox.com/2016/7/14/12016710/science-challeges-research-funding-peer review-proce 
  3. Bohannon, J. (2013). Who's afraid of peer review?. Science, 342(6154), 60-65. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.2013.342.6154.342_60 
  4. Clobridge, A. (2016). Open peer review: The next wave in open knowledge? The open road. Online Searcher, 40(4), 60-62. 
  5. Dobusch, L. & Heimstadt, M. (2019). Predatory publishing in management research: A call for open peer review. Management Learning, 50(5), 607-619. http://doi.org/10.1177/1350507619878820 
  6. Ferguson, C. L. (2020). Open Peer Review. Serials Review, 46(4), 286-291. http://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2020.1850039 
  7. Ford, E. (2013). Defining and characterizing open peer review: A review of the literature. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 44(4), 311-326. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.44-4-001 
  8. FOSTER consortium (2018, November 26). Open Peer Review. Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2640675 
  9. Fresco-Santalla, A. & Hernandez-Perez, T. (2014). Current and evolving models of peer review. The Serials Librarian, 67(4), 373-398. http://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2014.985415 
  10. Hames, I. (2014). The changing face of peer review. Science Editing, 1(1), 9-12. http://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.2014.1.9. 
  11. Ross-Hellauer, T. & Gorogh, E. (2019). Guidelines for open peer review implementation. Research Integrity and Peer Review. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 4(1), 1-12. http://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0063-9 
  12. Ross-Hellauer, T. & Horbach, S. P. J. M. (2022, December 21). 'Conditional Acceptance' (additional experiments required): A scoping review of recent evidence on key aspects of Open Peer Review. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/r6t8p 
  13. Ross-Hellauer, T. (2017). What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research, 6, 588. http://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2 
  14. 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. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189311 
  15. Sage (2014. July 8). SAGE Statement on Journal of Vibration and Control. Sage Publication. Available: https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/press/sage-statement-on-journal-of-vibration-and-control#:~:text=The%20full%20extent%20of%20the%20peer%20review%20ring,%28NPUE%29%20and%20possibly%20other%20authors%20at%20this%20institution. 
  16. Schmidt, B., Ross-Hellauer, T., van Edig, X., & Moylan, E. C. (2018). Ten considerations for open peer review. F1000Research, 7, 969. http://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15334.1 
  17. Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99(4), 178-182. http://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178 
  18. Spier, R. (2002). The history of the peer-review process. Trends in Biotechnology, 20(8), 357-358. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01985-6 
  19. Standard Terminology for Peer Review (2023). ANSI/NISO Z39.106-2023. http://doi.org/10.3789/ansi.niso.z39.106-2023 
  20. Tattersall, A. (2015). For what it's worth-the open peer review landscape. Online Information Review, 39(5), 649-663. http://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-06-2015-0182 
  21. Tennant, J. P., Dugan, J. M., Graziotin, D., Jacques, D. C., Waldner, F., Mietchen, D., Elkhatib, Y., Collister, L. B., Pikas, C. K., Crick, T., Masuzzo, P., Caravaggi, A., Berg, D. R., Niemeyer, K. E., Ross-Hellauer, T., Mannheimer, S., Rigling, L., Katz, D. S., Tzovaras, B. G., Pacheco-Mendoza, J., Fatima, N., Poblet, M., Isaakidis, M., Irawan, D. E., Renaut, S., Madan, C. R., Matthias, L., Kjaer, J. N., O'Donnell, D. P., Neylon, C., Kearns, S., Selvaraju, M., & Colomb, J. (2017). A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review. F1000Research, 6. http://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12037.3 
  22. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2021). UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. (SC-PCB-SPP/2021/OS/UROS). Available: https://www.unesco.org/en/legal-affairs/recommendation-open-science 
  23. Walker, R. & Rocha da Silva, P. (2015). Emerging trends in peer review-a survey. Frontiers in neuroscience, 9, 169. http://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2015.00169 
  24. Waltman, L., Kaltenbrunner, W., Pinfield, S., & Woods, H. B. (2023). How to improve scientific peer review Four schools of thought. Learned Publishing, 36(3), 334-347. http://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1544 
  25. Wang, P. & Tahamtan, I. (2017). The state-of-the-art of open peer review: Early adopters. proceedings of the association for information science and technology, 54(1), 819-820. http://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.2017.14505401170 
  26. Ware, M. (2011). Peer review: Recent experience and future directions. New Review of Information Networking, 16(1), 23-53. http://doi.org/10.1080/13614576.2011.566812 
  27. Wolfram, D., Wang, P., Hembree, A., & Park, H. (2020). Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science. Scientometrics, 125(2), 1033-1051. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03488-4