Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
The Acknowledgement and Attitudes of Open Peer Review amongst Library Information Researchers in Taiwan
Open peer review
Post-publication peer review
|Issue Date: ||2019-04-01 14:47:16 (UTC+8)|
The Open Peer Review system advocates the process to be more transparent in order to share more details of journal information to contributors and readers, and also to improve the "black box" problem. This research first reviews literature concerning the development of the Peer Review system, features and applications. The methods to carry out this research were based on in-depth interviewing and questionnaire to investigate the current knowledge and attitudes of the Peer Review system and the status of the library information journals, and then to analyze the feasibility of introducing the open peer review system in the future, and to serve as reference for academic journals to further develop the strategies and marketing orientation.
The conclusions are as follows: (a) Library Information academic journals in Taiwan have encountered many restrictions. Due to human resources and financial constraints, they could not fully adopt the online review system and academic communication tools (such as DOI and ORCID). (b) Currently, the Peer Review system of Library and information journals in Taiwan consider that although there is space remaining to be improved, it is generally satisfactory. (c) The open peer review system is not clearly defined, and mainly based on the Post-Publication Peer Review system (PPPR) model. In order to improve the disadvantage of non-transparent of the traditional single/double-blind Peer Review model, it advocates comments and related information on the Open Peer Review system, and pay more attention to the contributions of reviewers. (d)The Library and Information researchers and journal editors in Taiwan still havenot acknowledged the Open Review system. Most of them are conservative about the fully public review comments and reviewers' backgrounds, but they are affirmative to the characteristics of reviewers’ contributions.
This research sums up four suggestions for academic journals: (a)Reviewing the overall status of academic journals and accelerating the introduction of online submission review systems will benefit the efficiency of journal operations. (b)Academic journals should combine academic communication tools with the contributions of reviewers. (c) It’s critical for Research institutions to pay more attention to academic journals and to sustain funding. (d) The introduction of an Open Peer Review system requires constant communication and consensus building among academic communities.
____. “A Publishing Milestone to Celebrate: 200.000 PLOS Research Articles and Counting.” PLOS ONE. Accessed October 15, 2018.
____. “About ASAPbio.” ASAPbio. Accessed October 15, 2018.http://asapbio.org/about-.
____. “About PubPeer.” Pubpeer. Accessed October 15, 2018. https://pubpeer.com/static/about.
____. “About ScienceOpen.” ScienceOpen. Accessed October 12, 2018. http://about.scienceopen.com/.
____. “About The Winnower.” The Winnower. Accessed October 12, 2018. https://thewinnower.com/about.
____. “Become a master of peer review.” Publons. Accessed October 12, 2018. https://publons.com/blog/publons-academy/.
____. “Benefits of Membership.” Crossref. September 2018. Accessed October 15, 2018. https://www.crossref.org/membership/benefits/.
____. “Exporting Verified Reviews to Orcid - Is This Possible?” Publons. March 2018 Accessed October 15, 2018.
____. “General Information About arXiv.” arXiv. Accessed October 12, 2018. https://arxiv.org/help/general.
____. “Introducing metadata for peer review.” Crossref. June 2019. Accessed October 15, 2018. https://www.crossref.org/news/2018-06-05-introducing-metadata-for-peer-review/.
____. “Learned Society Defends Peer Review.” Times Higher Education. September 7. 2007. Accessed December 25, 2015, https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/learned-society-defends-peer-review/310359.article.
____. “Open Access Survey: Exporing the Views of Taylor & Francies and Routledge Authors.” Taylor & Francis Group. March 2013. Accessed December 20, 2015, http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/pdf/open-Access-survey-march2013.pdf.
____. “Open Letter on the Publication of Peer Review Reports.” ASAPbio. Accessed October 15, 2018. http://asapbio.org/letter.
____. “ORCID and CASRAI: Acknowledging Peer Review Activities.” ORCID. April 2014. Accessed October 15, 2018. https://orcid.org/blog/2014/04/08/orcid-and-casrai-acknowledging-peer-review-activities.
____. “Peer Review in 2015 A Global View: A White Paper from Taylor & Francis.” Taylor & Frances Group. October 2015, Accessed December 29, 2015, http://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/peer-review-in-2015/.
____. “Peer Review Week.” Peer Review Week. Accessed October 13, 2018. https://peerreviewweek.wordpress.com/
____. “Philosophical Transactions−the world's first science journal.” The Royal Society. Accessed June 16, 2016. http://rstl.royalsocietypublishing.org/.
____. “PubMed Commons to be Discontinued.” PubMed. Accessed October 12, 2018. https://ncbiinsights.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2018/02/01/pubmed-commons-to-be-discontinued/.
____. “PubMed Help.” PubMed. Accessed October 15, 2018. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK3827/#pubmedhelp.PubMed_Quick_Start.
____. “Quality Indices.” Peerage of science. Accessed Discontinued, 2018. https://www.peerageofscience.org/how-it-works/quality-indices/.
____. “Sense about Science: Peer Review Survey 2009.” Sense About Science .Accessed December 29. 2015, http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/peer-review-survey-2009.html.
____. “Singapore Statement on Research Integrity.” World Conferences on Research Integrity. (September 22. 2010). Accessed December 25, 2015, http://www.researchintegrity.org/
____. “Terms. Policies & Guidelines.” Publon. Accessed October 28, 2018. https://publons.com/about/terms.
____. “Peer review in Scientific Publications: Eighth Report of Session 2010–12.” Publication prejudices: An Experimental Study of Confirmatory Bias in The Peer Review System Science and Engineering Ethics Science and Technology Committee. House of Commons (July 18. 2011). Accessed December 18, 2016. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/856/856.pdf.
____. “Why PeerJ?.” PeerJ. Accessed October 28, 2018. https://peerj.com/benefits/.
____. “All Science Deserves to Be Published PLOS ONE.” Accessed October 28, 2018. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/static/publish.
Cat, Ferguson., Marcus, Adam., and Oransky, Ivan. "Publishing: The peer-review scam." Nature. No.515 (2014): 480-482.
COPE Council. “COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers–English.” COPE. September. 2017. Accessed December 20, 2018. https://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_Guidelines_For_Peer_Reviewers_2.pdf.
Dorival, Paglione Laura. and Lawrence Rebecca Naomi. “Data Exchange Standards to Support and Acknowledge Peer‐Review Activity.” Learned Publishing no.28 (2015): 309-16.
Douglas, Peters. P. and Ceci , Stephen J.“ Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles. submitted again.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences. no.5.1982: 187-105.
Faculty of 1000. “How it Works.” Faculty of 1000. Accessed October 15, 2018. http://f1000research.com/about.
Jordan, Katherine. “Exploring the ResearchGate score as an academic metric: Reflections and implications for practice.” (Paper presented Quantifying and Analysing Scholarly Communication on the Web) . Oxford. (Jun 30 2015). Accessed October 15, 2018. http://oro.open.ac.uk/43538/.
Lutz, Bornmann. "Scientific peer review." Annual review of information science and technology no.45 (2011): 197-245.
Marshal, Barry l. “Helicobacter evolution.” Accessed October 15, 2018.https://www.scienceopen.com/collection/Helicobacter_evolution.
Pontille, David and Torny Didier. "From manuscript evaluation to article valuation: the changing technologies of journal peer review." Human Studies 38.1 (2015): 57-79.
Ray, Spier. "The history of the peer-review process." TRENDS in Biotechnology no.20.8 (2002): 357-358.
Rooyen, Susan van., Delamothe, Tony, and Evans, Stephen J. W. “Effect on Peer Review of Telling Reviewers That Their Signed Reviews Might Be Posted on the Web: Randomised Controlled Trial.” BMJ no.341 (November 2010). Accessed October 15, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c5729.
Ross-Hellauer, Tony. “Defining Open Peer Review: Part Two – Seven Traits of OPR.” OpenUP November 2, 2016. Accessed October 28, 2018. https://blogs.openaire.eu/?p=1410.
Tattersall , Andy. “For What It’S Worth–The Open Peer Review Landscape.” Online Information Review 39 (2015): 649-663.
Tennant, Jonathan P. et al. “A Multi-Disciplinary Perspective on Emergent and Future Innovations in Peer Review.” F1000Research 6. no. 1151 (2017). Accessed October 15, 2018. https://f1000research.com/articles/6-1151/v1#ref-216.
Tennant, Jon. “Collections as The Future of Academic-Led Journals.” September 29. 2017. Accessed October 28, 2018. http://blog.scienceopen.com/2016/03/collections-as-the-future-of-academic-led-journals/.
Ware, Mark. “Peer Review in Scholarly Journals: Perspective of the Scholarly Community – An International Study.” Information Service & Use. January 2008. Accessed December 18, 2015. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7050/9ee2d48f00b0b5ed1d471773f6c0d9b45b30.pdf
|Source URI: ||http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0103155010|
|Data Type: ||thesis|
|Appears in Collections:||[圖書資訊與檔案學研究所] 學位論文|
Files in This Item:
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.