• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.42 no.4
• /
• pp.159-184
• /
• 2017

OECD MNE Guidelines ('OECD Guidelines') was set forth in 1976 as a form of annex to the OECD Declaration on International Investment and Multinational Enterprises. The objective of the OECD Guidelines is to fulfill the implementation and adoption of the Responsible Business Conduct ('RBC') among the adhering states. To further the effectiveness of the OECD Guidelines, OECD, specifically the Investment Committee of OECD, has utilized National Contact Point ('NCP') structure. According to the Procedural Guidance annexed to the OECD Guidelines, peer learning is prescribed as an important tool for promoting and facilitating the implementation procedures of the OECD Guidelines. This paper, inter alia, is mainly focusing on the peer review mechanism applicable to NCPs because negative assessments by peers are likely to harm Korea's state image and entail international criticisms even though such reviews are conducted voluntarily. In addition, the Working Party on Responsible Business Conduct ('WPRBC') decided to have a peer review of Korean NCP in 2019. This paper first outlines the meaning and current applications of the peer review mechanism, and then analyzes specific peer review cases conducted in Denmark and Belgium in 2015, and in 2016, respectively. Lastly, based on the issues handled in the peer review reports on the above states, this paper makes a few recommendations for Korean government to prepare the peer review scheduled in 2019.

• Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice
• /
• v.12 no.1
• /
• pp.87-101
• /
• 2024

As the academic publishing environment evolves rapidly and the open science paradigm emerges, the demand for efficient and transparent peer review is growing. This study outlines efforts to actively introduce advanced concepts in scholarly communication into the submission and review system. AccessON Peer Review Management System Plus (ACOMS+), developed and operated by the Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, is an online submission and peer review system that aims for open science. This study provides an overview of ACOMS+ and presents its four main features: open peer review, open access publishing and self-archiving, online quantitative/qualitative evaluation, and peer reviewer invitation. The directions for further developing ACOMS+ to fully support open science are also discussed. ACOMS+ is the first system in Korea to introduce the open peer review process and is distinguished as a system that supports open access publishing and digital transformation of academic journals. Furthermore, ACOMS+ is expected to contribute to the advancement of the academic publishing environment through the increasing shift toward open access publishing, transparent peer review, and open science.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.22 no.10
• /
• pp.59-73
• /
• 2022

Open peer review intends to help review a manuscript in a transparent and accountable manner, opening up the identity of a reviewer and authors in a scholarly journal. Although some research about open peer review, for example, authors' understanding of open peer review, exists, research about editors' perspectives of a scholarly journal in Korean domestic science and technology fields has not been found. Editors' views may include whether an academic journal plans to adopt open peer review, when they might adopt it, or what the possible benefits, challenges, and issues in adopting open peer review would be. This paper presents a survey scheme, data, and analysis of Korean editors' perspectives on open peer review. Specifically, we designed the online survey questionnaire, collected the survey data from journal editors, and analyzed the survey results to explore editors' understanding of open peer review. We then compared our research with previous work, such as our Focused Group Interview and other similar domestic and foreign analysis. This study result is expected to help make an open peer review policy for public institutes to provide essential services for scholarly journals, including a scholarly peer review system. Academic society may also get some insights in adopting the open peer review method in the peer-review process.

• Archives of Plastic Surgery
• /
• v.49 no.4
• /
• pp.538-542
• /
• 2022

Performing the first peer review of a plastic surgical research article can be an overwhelming task. However, it is an essential scholarly skill and peer review is used in a multitude of settings: evaluation of journal articles, conference abstracts, and research proposals. Furthermore, peer reviewing provides more than just the opportunity to read and help improve other's work: peer reviewing can improve your own scientific writing. A structured approach is possible and recommended. In these ten tips, we provide guidance on how to successfully conduct the first peer reviews. The ten tips on peer reviewing concern: 1) Appropriateness: are you qualified and prepared to perform the peer review? 2) Familiarization with the journal and its reviewing guidelines; 3) Gathering first impressions of the paper followed by specific tips for reviewing; 4) the abstract and introduction; 5) Materials, methods, and results (including statistical considerations); and 6) discussion, conclusion, and references. Tip 7 concerns writing and structuring the review; Tips 7 and 8 describe how to provide constructive criticism and understanding the limits of your expertise. Finally, Tip 10 details why-and how-you become a peer reviewer. Peer review can be done by any plastic surgeon, not just those interested in an academic career. These ten tips provide useful insights for both the aspiring and the experienced peer reviewer. In conclusion, a systematic approach to peer reviewing is possible and recommended, and can help you getting started to provide quality peer reviews that contribute to moving the field of plastic surgery forward.

• Journal of Korean Medical Science
• /
• v.33 no.46
• /
• pp.287.1-287.14
• /
• 2018

Integrity of authorship and peer review practices are important considerations for ethical publishing. Criteria for authorship, as delineated in the guidelines by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), have undergone evolution over the decades, and now require fulfillment of four criteria, including the need to be able to take responsibility for all aspects of the manuscript in question. Although such updated authorship criteria were published nearly five years ago, still, many major medical and specialist journals have yet to revise their author instructions to conform to this. Inappropriate authorship practices may include gift, guest or ghost authorship. Existing literature suggests that such practices are still widely prevalent, especially in non-English speaking countries. Another emerging problem is that of peer review fraud, mostly by authors, but also rarely by handling editors. There is literature to suggest that a proportion of such fake peer review may be driven by the support of some unscrupulous external editing agencies. Such inappropriate practices with authorship malpractices or disagreement, or peer review fraud, have resulted in more than 600 retractions each, as identified on the retractions database of Retractionwatch.com. There is a need to generate greater awareness, especially in authors from non-English speaking regions of the world, about inappropriate authorship and unethical practices in peer review. Also, support of any external editing agency should be clearly disclosed by authors at the time of submission of a manuscript.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Railway
• /
• v.12 no.3
• /
• pp.376-381
• /
• 2009

While applying the systems engineering (SE) in systems development, a series of technical reviews play a critical role and is intended to monitor the status of the progress and outcomes of the project for which appropriate technical plans prepared earlier should be executed. It is noted however that during the technical review executed as planned, a lot of problems usually come out. Included are the ambiguity in the reports of the progress status and outcomes, discrepancies among the opinions from different participants, and the delay in carrying out the tasks. To solve those problems in an early stage, informal reviews are usually adopted before the formal technical reviews are held. A type of the informal reviews is the peer review. This paper is concerned with the peer review process model to make the later technical reviews more effective. Specifically, we first review the necessity and meaning of the peer reviews. We then study a model for the peer review process. To model the process, the methods of an IDEF modeling and schema definition have been applied using a computer-aided SE tool, Cradle(R), in the environment of the national research and development project. As a result, the implemented process model can show hew the peer review process is designed and managed to be utilized in the technical review. The documents related with the peer review process can also be generated automatically from the developed model Database. Finally, a general misunderstanding about the peer review and its improvement plan have also been mentioned.

• Toxicological Research
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.1-11
• /
• 2004

Evaluation of toxicological pathology is to some extend subjective judgments by pathologist and the accuracy of pathologist's works is based on the individual training and experiences. It has been required to establish a peer review system for toxicologic pathology and these review system has been employed by various practice of toxicological pathology. It would be pointed out that the possible causes of drifts in pathology are due to 1) lack of knowledge or experience of individual pathologists, 2) poorly maintained consistence of grading among animals in study, 3) different interpretation of findings between pathologists, or 4) pathology data processing. Example cases of diagnostic errors and current practice of peer review including tissue selection criteria, documentation and problem resolution for short-term and carcinogenicity studies were introduced. For sound regulatory system and high integrity of practice in toxicological pathology, current approaches of peer review system were reviewed.

• English Language & Literature Teaching
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.151-168
• /
• 2009

The present study investigates the impact of trained peer feedback on the quantity and quality of revisions made by EFL students at a low-intermediate level. Peer review training was carried out in experimental group through four in-class training sessions and four peer dyad-instructor conferences after class. Students' $1^{st}$ drafts with written peer feedback and revised drafts prior to and post training were collected and analyzed. Results reveal that after training the students produced more revisions in response to their peer comments (96% of total revisions) and those revisions were counted as enhanced in quality (93% of peer-triggered revisions). In contrast, the results of paired t-test within control group indicate that there was no significant difference between two data collected from week 3 and week 16 (t = -.57, df =19, p = .577 at p < .05). The findings suggest that training as an ongoing process of teacher intervention contributes to effectiveness of the peer feedback activity. The study provides pedagogical implications for how to structure and implement peer review training for the sake of its direct strength in an EFL writing class.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society for Information Management Conference
• /
• 2014.08a
• /
• pp.73-78
• /
• 2014

피어리뷰(Peer Review)는 17세기 학술지가 만들어진 이래 오늘날까지 가장 널리 사용되는 논문의 질적인 수준과 학술지 게재 여부를 판단하는 전통적인 평가도구이다. 그러나 피어리뷰의 과정에서 발생되는 공정성 저해와 학술출판 분야에서 오픈 액세스 (OA, Open Access) 저널이 계속적으로 증가하는 디지털 미디어 시대에서 소수의 전문가가 검증하는 피어리뷰 시스템에 관한 불만들이 제기되면서 현 피어리뷰 시스템의 새로운 대안으로 오픈 피어리뷰(Open Peer Review)가 제시되기도 하였다. 이에 본 연구에서는 피어리뷰의 이론적 배경을 살펴보고 이를 토대로 새로운 대안으로 떠오르고 있는 오픈피어리뷰의 평가도구로써의 활용가능성에 대하여 살펴보고자 한다.

• English Language & Literature Teaching
• /
• v.11 no.2
• /
• pp.51-66
• /
• 2005

This study investigates the feasibility of incorporating student evaluations of peer review interactions into the course grade for an EFL writing course. The use of such evaluations offers a way to grade the process of writing more directly than using writing portfolios alone. Moreover, evaluating peer review interactions highlights the social aspect of writing, which is valuable in the current post-process climate in writing instruction. The 18 members of a semester-long EFL writing course at a Korean university were trained in peer response for one half of a semester; then performed evaluations of peer review interactions during the second half of the semester as part of their writing course. Student evaluations were examined to reveal whether any bias occurred due to relative age, gender, major, or question type. The results revealed no such biases. Therefore, it is suggested that students are capable of providing fair evaluations of peers, which means the evaluations can be factored into the course grade in order to evaluate the social aspect of the writing process.