Ross-Hellauer, Tony

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","e0189311"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","12"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","PloS one"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","12"],["dc.contributor.author","Ross-Hellauer, Tony"],["dc.contributor.author","Deppe, Arvid"],["dc.contributor.author","Schmidt, Birgit"],["dc.contributor.editor","Wicherts, J. M."],["dc.date.accessioned","2017-12-15T14:25:50Z"],["dc.date.available","2017-12-15T14:25:50Z"],["dc.date.issued","2017"],["dc.description.abstract","Open peer review (OPR) is a cornerstone of the emergent Open Science agenda. Yet to date no large-scale survey of attitudes towards OPR amongst academic editors, authors, reviewers and publishers has been undertaken. This paper presents the findings of an online survey, conducted for the OpenAIRE2020 project during September and October 2016, that sought to bridge this information gap in order to aid the development of appropriate OPR approaches by providing evidence about attitudes towards and levels of experience with OPR. The results of this cross-disciplinary survey, which received 3,062 full responses, show the majority (60.3%) of respondents to be believe that OPR as a general concept should be mainstream scholarly practice (although attitudes to individual traits varied, and open identities peer review was not generally favoured). Respondents were also in favour of other areas of Open Science, like Open Access (88.2%) and Open Data (80.3%). Among respondents we observed high levels of experience with OPR, with three out of four (76.2%) reporting having taken part in an OPR process as author, reviewer or editor. There were also high levels of support for most of the traits of OPR, particularly open interaction, open reports and final-version commenting. Respondents were against opening reviewer identities to authors, however, with more than half believing it would make peer review worse. Overall satisfaction with the peer review system used by scholarly journals seems to strongly vary across disciplines. Taken together, these findings are very encouraging for OPR's prospects for moving mainstream but indicate that due care must be taken to avoid a \"one-size fits all\" solution and to tailor such systems to differing (especially disciplinary) contexts. OPR is an evolving phenomenon and hence future studies are to be encouraged, especially to further explore differences between disciplines and monitor the evolution of attitudes."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1371/journal.pone.0189311"],["dc.identifier.pmid","29236721"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/14985"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/11499"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.relation.eissn","1932-6203"],["dc.rights","CC BY 4.0"],["dc.rights.uri","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0"],["dc.title","Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","unknown"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","215824401881671"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","4"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","SAGE Open"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","8"],["dc.contributor.author","Ross-Hellauer, Tony"],["dc.contributor.author","Schmidt, Birgit"],["dc.contributor.author","Kramer, Bianca"],["dc.date.accessioned","2020-12-10T18:38:39Z"],["dc.date.available","2020-12-10T18:38:39Z"],["dc.date.issued","2018"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1177/2158244018816717"],["dc.identifier.eissn","2158-2440"],["dc.identifier.issn","2158-2440"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/77402"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI Import GROB-354"],["dc.title","Are Funder Open Access Platforms a Good Idea?"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.contributor.author","Schmidt, Birgit"],["dc.contributor.author","Deppe, Arvid"],["dc.contributor.author","Bordier, Julien"],["dc.contributor.author","Ross-Hellauer, Tony"],["dc.contributor.editor","Loizides, Fernando"],["dc.contributor.editor","Schmidt, Birgit"],["dc.date.accessioned","2016-06-10T10:43:58Z"],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-10-27T13:19:41Z"],["dc.date.available","2016-06-10T10:43:58Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-10-27T13:19:41Z"],["dc.date.issued","2016"],["dc.description.abstract","Openness in peer review is no longer a terra incognita. However, there remains a need for further experimentation and careful evaluation of its advantages and disadvantages in practice. OpenAIRE, the European digital infrastructure for Open Scholarship, offers a unique environment for such experiments. This paper describes the design and early results of three such experiments, which are currently under development in close collaboration with selected publishing and repository communities."],["dc.format.extent","91-98"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.3233/978-1-61499-649-1-91"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/13349"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/91904"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","Migrated from goescholar"],["dc.relation.ispartof","Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen"],["dc.rights","CC BY-NC 3.0"],["dc.rights.uri","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0"],["dc.title","Peer Review on the Move from Closed to Open"],["dc.type","book_chapter"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","unknown"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","4"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Research Integrity and Peer Review"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","4"],["dc.contributor.author","Ross-Hellauer, Tony"],["dc.contributor.author","Görögh, Edit"],["dc.date.accessioned","2019-07-09T11:50:03Z"],["dc.date.available","2019-07-09T11:50:03Z"],["dc.date.issued","2019"],["dc.description.abstract","Abstract Open peer review (OPR) is moving into the mainstream, but it is often poorly understood and surveys of researcher attitudes show important barriers to implementation. As more journals move to implement and experiment with the myriad of innovations covered by this term, there is a clear need for best practice guidelines to guide implementation. This brief article aims to address this knowledge gap, reporting work based on an interactive stakeholder workshop to create best-practice guidelines for editors and journals who wish to transition to OPR. Although the advice is aimed mainly at editors and publishers of scientific journals, since this is the area in which OPR is at its most mature, many of the principles may also be applicable for the implementation of OPR in other areas (e.g., books, conference submissions)."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1186/s41073-019-0063-9"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/15845"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/59690"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.publisher","BioMed Central"],["dc.rights","CC BY 4.0"],["dc.rights.uri","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0"],["dc.title","Guidelines for open peer review implementation"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","969"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","F1000Research"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","7"],["dc.contributor.author","Schmidt, Birgit"],["dc.contributor.author","Ross-Hellauer, Tony"],["dc.contributor.author","van Edig, Xenia"],["dc.contributor.author","Moylan, Elizabeth C."],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-08-15T09:29:45Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-08-15T09:29:45Z"],["dc.date.issued","2018"],["dc.description.abstract","Open peer review (OPR), as with other elements of open science and open research, is on the rise. It aims to bring greater transparency and participation to formal and informal peer review processes. But what is meant by 'open peer review', and what advantages and disadvantages does it have over standard forms of review? How do authors or reviewers approach OPR? And what pitfalls and opportunities should you look out for? Here, we propose ten considerations for OPR, drawing on discussions with authors, reviewers, editors, publishers and librarians, and provide a pragmatic, hands-on introduction to these issues. We cover basic principles and summarise best practices, indicating how to use OPR to achieve best value and mutual benefits for all stakeholders and the wider research community."],["dc.description.sponsorship","httpss://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.12688/f1000research.15334.1"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/15287"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/15308"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.notes.status","final"],["dc.relation.eissn","2046-1402"],["dc.rights","CC BY 4.0"],["dc.rights.uri","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0"],["dc.title","Ten considerations for open peer review"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","unknown"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]