Tag: Open Peer Review

Preprint peer review on ScienceOpen

Preprint peer review on ScienceOpen

A group of industry thought leaders led by ASAPbio recently published a Consensus View on open preprint peer review practices, Recommendations for accelerating open preprint peer review to improve the culture of science. The authors, including ScienceOpen CEO Stephanie Dawson, explore how the growing prevalence of preprints offers an opportunity to reimagine peer review, fostering a culture of more comprehensive and collaborative evaluation processes. Open preprint peer review can enhance accessibility, benefit early career researchers, and streamline evaluation, reducing delays. The authors also address some of the challenges associated with evaluating preprints, and present recommendations for transparent and equitable preprint peer review. 

Open Peer Review at ScienceOpen

Open Peer Review at ScienceOpen

Review by academic peers is at the core of the scientific publishing process. By making reviews and comments accessible, open peer review practices build upon the traditional peer review process. Transparency helps to enhance the reliability and credibility of both peer review and research results. The visible and shared feedback can foster collaboration and increase public trust in scientific findings.  

Since its inception, ScienceOpen has been actively promoting and facilitating open peer review, both within its network and across the whole digital publishing landscape. Over the years, we have continued to explore open peer review tools and workflows to support preprint management, post-publication review, and the creation of open access journals based on open peer review.

Love Methods Week at the Berlin Institute of Health #LoveMethods24

Love Methods Week at the Berlin Institute of Health #LoveMethods24

Accessible and reusable data is an important part of open science practice. However, to be able to share and build on data, we first need to generate it. Ensuring that the methods used to generate research data are transparent, clearly documented, reproducible, and reusable is an equally crucial element of the scientific process. Standardized and reproducible research methods not only facilitate the generation of reliable data but also contribute to the overall transparency and credibility of scientific research. Join ScienceOpen in celebrating Love Methods Week and promoting open, reusable, and easily verifiable methods.

Up for a challenge? Join ScienceOpen’s Open Peer Review Competition

Up for a challenge? Join ScienceOpen’s Open Peer Review Competition

To mark Peer Review Week coming up at the end of September, we invite you to a month-long celebration of open peer review and to begin exploring preprints on ScienceOpen, submit a substantial review, and compete for one of three prizes in our open peer review competition.

Reviewer Credits and Science Open cooperate to make Peer Review visible

Reviewer Credits and Science Open cooperate to make Peer Review visible

Reviewer Credits, the global expert network that makes peer review visible and helps researchers get recognition for their work, is now partnering with ScienceOpen to make Peer Review visible and highlight its importance in the publishing landscape.

In:  Collections  
Success Stories of 2022 – Journal of Systems Thinking

Success Stories of 2022 – Journal of Systems Thinking

The Journal of Systems Thinking (JoST) is the first and only open-access post-publication peer-reviewed (PPPR) journal dedicated to basic scientific research, innovation, and public understanding in the areas of Systems Thinking (cognitive complexity), Systems Mapping (visual complexity), Systems Leadership (organizational complexity), and Systems Science (ontological complexity). 

Scholars’ views on Open Peer Review – Presenting Survey Results

Scholars’ views on Open Peer Review – Presenting Survey Results

Our survey was broad in scope, with the goal of exploring more diverse perspectives and experiences on the advantages and disadvantages of Open Peer Review. We asked about the number of articles our respondents had reviewed, where they published them, and some more specific questions about various aspects of open peer review.

On this blog, we are happy to share the results.

  Previous page
1234