Take the Open Peer Review Survey!

Take the Open Peer Review Survey!

Expert peer review is the essential component of scholarly publishing and currently the standard mode of validating the results of academic inquiry. Because of its critical role, there are increasing calls to make this part of the process more transparent with Open Peer Review.

There are pros and cons of Open Peer Review, so we would like to hear from you. Do you believe that Open Peer Review will catalyze a culture of open scholarly debate, or do you feel that it will prevent researchers from being completely honest in their critique?

Take our survey and share your experiences and thoughts!

Create your own user feedback survey

This survey will help us establish a clearer image of potential intervention areas, issues, and best practices that could aid in the creation of a more accessible and transparent digital environment for peer reviewing.

ScienceOpen has actively been facilitating the open peer reviewing process since its inception, not only within its network but also across the digital publishing landscape. With over 2 million indexed preprints from a variety of repositories, ScienceOpen provides a solid infrastructure for Open Peer Review. ScienceOpen has developed a brief survey to better understand researchers’ experiences with open peer review in the context of fostering a more open discourse around Peer Reviews.

It takes less than 5 minutes to complete the survey, and your responses will provide us with critical information that will be addressed further during Peer Review Week, which runs from September 19th to September 23rd. Everyone in the scholarly community, including students, publishers, and scholars, is invited to participate in the survey.

#PublishYourReviews

We recently joined ASAPbio’s #PublishYourReviews initiative, which aims to inspire more transparency, enrich the scientific debate with diverse knowledge, and ignite a culture of open preprint comments.

#PublishYourReviews: Open Conversation on Preprints and Reviewing

This is a critical project that has prompted us to look into other ways to adapt our publishing infrastructure to a more open and transparent workflow for maintaining and reviewing preprints and articles after they have been published.

Start reviewing today!

If you are interested in the topic, you can start reviewing articles anytime on ScienceOpen. We feature journals that are already actively implementing the open peer review workflow, both for preprints and publications. 

Get some inspiration and start reviewing publications from the UCL Open: Environment collection, featuring many preprints and multi-disciplinary research with an interest in all aspects of environment-related research. 

The new Journal of Systems Thinking (JoST) is a great source for scholars to give their expert opinions on publications covering topics like innovation, and public understanding in the areas of Systems Thinking.

AfricArXiv Preprints is another collection where reviewers can give their contribution, by reviewing, publishing reviews, and facilitating the scholarly discussion on research topics coming from Africa.

In the section Review on ScienceOpen, you can learn more about all the guidelines and requirements for reviewing on our platform. Have a look and don’t hesitate to get in touch with our team, if there are any additional questions.


The Survey can be accessed and shared via this link: https://www.surveymonkey.de/r/DX6WSG8

3 thoughts on “Take the Open Peer Review Survey!”

  1. Hello,

    This is a theme very important for the advancement of paper reviews’ quality and honesty. I really have suffered for my submitted papers from many irresponsible reviewers who can write anything wrong or general, without any relation with a concrete paper, and profit from the so-called editorial policies to do this by being covered in their irresponsibility by these insane policies.
    Furthermore, as a reviewer I am suffering from the irresponsibility of the editors who refuse to give feedback to my reviews, more concretely at Transportation Research Board (TRB), part of not less than the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine of the USA. I claim to have made one of, if not, the best and longest review for TRB and, by consequence, in the world, and the editor is refusing not only through the TRB website and through Publons website to my continuous requests to him to complete a feedback on my review quality and/or level of performance. Also the Publons website is making the same retention of information to my request to know which is the position of my review length in the whole number of about 5.6 millions of reviews they have with content in their website. We are leaving in a world of information retention because of these policies and practices to not deliver the truth, as the science today, and the vast majority of papers, in my opinion, is accepted for publication in journals so-called of high quality only because of the relationships and conjunctures of the type of castes at the top-level of each journal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.