Authors,Year,Title,Otherbibinfo,DOIorURI,What is Reviewed?,Type,Discipline,ExDef,ImDef,OpenIdentities,OpenReports,OpenParticipation,OpenInteraction,OpenPre-reviewManuscripts,OpenFinal-versionCommenting,OpenPlatforms,,,
"Bruce, R (Bruce, Rachel); Chauvin, A (Chauvin, Anthony); Trinquart, L (Trinquart, Ludovic); Ravaud, P (Ravaud, Philippe);Boutron, I (Boutron, Isabelle)",2016,Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis,"BMC MEDICINE, 14",10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5,Journal articles,Article,STEM,"""'Open' peer review process, whereby peer reviewers are informed that their name would be revealed to the authors, other peer reviewers, and/or the public.""",,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Vercellini, Paolo; Buggio, Laura; Vigano, Paola; et al.",2016,Peer review in medical journals: Beyond quality of reports towards transparency and public scrutiny of the process,EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INTERNAL MEDICINE  Volume: 31   Pages: 15-19,10.1016/j.ejim.2016.04.014,Journal articles,Article,STEM,,"""some medical journals have adopted an open peer review system, thus revealing the reviewers' identity to authors""",1,0,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Das, A K",2016,"Peer review' for scientific manuscripts: Emerging issues, potential threats, and possible remedies.","Medical journal, Armed Forces India  Volume: 72   Issue: 2   Pages: 172-4 ",10.1016/j.mjafi.2016.02.014,Journal articles,Article,Interdisciplinary,"""Open review: Identities of authors and reviewers are not concealed.""",,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Resnik, David B.; Elmore, Susan A.",2016,"Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors",SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS  Volume: 22   Issue: 1   Pages: 169-188,10.1007/s11948-015-9625-5,Journal articles,Article,Interdisciplinary,"""in an open peer review process no identities are concealed""",,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Levis, Alexander W.; Leentjens, Albert F. G.; Levenson, James L.; et al.",2015,Comparison of self-citation by peer reviewers in a journal with single-blind peer review versus a journal with open peer review,"JOURNAL OF PSYCHOSOMATIC RESEARCH, Volume: 79 Issue: 6 Pages: 561-565",10.1016/j.jpsychores.2015.08.004,Journal articles,Article,STEM,"""open peer review, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are known to one another and, in some settings, reviews are made publically available""",,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Bali, Maha",2015,A new scholar's perspective on open peer review,TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION  Volume: 20   Issue: 8   Pages: 857-863,10.1080/13562517.2015.1085857,Not specified,Article,SSH,,"""In an open peer review, we are less likely to write our critiques so harshly, and instead to consider writing them more constructively, as we will be directly accountable to the authors to explain why we make certain judgments. Also, authors are able to interact with reviewers to clarify and probe further and possibly also explain their perspective, and reviewers are able to build off of each other's ideas and discuss points on which they disagree with each other or with the author. This is a more pedagogical approach than blind peer review that requires authors to go through editors for such questions.""",1,0,0,1,0,0,0,,,
"Jones, R. T.",2015,Presidential Address: Truth and error in scientific publishing,JOURNAL OF THE SOUTHERN AFRICAN INSTITUTE OF MINING AND METALLURGY  Volume: 115   Issue: 9  Pages: 799-816,,Not specified,Article,Interdisciplinary,"""an open peer-review system. Reviewers were asked whether they would agree to having their names revealed to the authors whose papers they review."", ""Some journals have started printing the names of reviewers. The British Medical Journal (BMJ), for instance, decided to discontinue anonymous peer reviews in 1999 (New Atlantis, 2006). Open peer review allows for greater transparency and accountability.""",,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Walker, Richard; da Silva, Pascal Rocha",2015,Emerging trends in peer review - a survey,FRONTIERS IN NEUROSCIENCE  Volume: 9     Article Number: 169,10.3389/fnins.2015.00169,Journal articles,Article,Interdisciplinary,"""Open: reviewers identifies are revealed to authors and, in some cases, are published together with the article they have reviewed""",,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Nobarany, Syavash; Booth, Kellogg S.",2015,Use of Politeness Strategies in Signed Open Peer Review,JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY  Volume: 66   Issue: 5  Pages: 1048-1064,10.1002/asi.23229,Journal articles,Article,Interdisciplinary,,"NOTE: Specifically does not mean OpenID (terms ""signed"")",0,1,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Blomberg, Niklas; Oliveira, Arlindo; Mons, Barend; et al.",2015,The ELIXIR channel in F1000Research.,F1000Research  Volume: 4,10.12688/f1000research.7587.2,Journal articles,Article,STEM,,"OPR as in F1000Research (post-publication, ""Expert referees are selected and invited, and their reports and names are published alongside the article, together with the authors' responses"" - note not open participation as this is termed ""user commenting"")",1,1,0,1,1,0,0,,,
"Walters, W Patrick; Bajorath, Jurgen",2015,On the evolving open peer review culture for chemical information science,F1000Research  Volume: 4 ,10.12688/f1000research.7460.1,Journal articles,Article,STEM,,"OPR as in F1000Research (post-publication, ""Expert referees are selected and invited, and their reports and names are published alongside the article, together with the authors' responses"" - note not open participation as this is termed ""user commenting"")",1,1,0,1,1,0,0,,,
"Tattersall, Andy",2015,For what it's worth - the open peer review landscape,ONLINE INFORMATION REVIEW  Volume: 39   Issue: 5   Pages: 649-663,10.1108/OIR-06-2015-0182,Not specified,Article,Interdisciplinary,"""The general philosophy of open peer review is that the reviewer identity will be disclosed and the review directly presented to the scientific community including the authors (without editorial interference). In addition, authors and readers have the opportunity to comment on reviews.""",,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,,,
"Kowalczuk, Maria K.; Dudbridge, Frank; Nanda, Shreeya; et al.",2015,Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models,BMJ OPEN  Volume: 5   Issue: 9     Article Number: e008707,10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008707,Journal articles,Article,STEM,"""open peer review, where authors and reviewers both know each other's identity""",,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Bajorath, Jurgen",2015,Entering new publication territory in chemoinformatics and chemical information science,F1000Research  Volume: 4   Pages: 35 ,10.12688/f1000research.6101.1,Journal articles,Article,STEM,,"OPR as in F1000Research (post-publication, ""Expert referees are selected and invited, and their reports and names are published alongside the article, together with the authors' responses"" - note not open participation as this is termed ""user commenting"")",1,1,0,1,1,0,0,,,
"Tracz, Vitek",2015,The five deadly sins of science publishing.,F1000Research  Volume: 4   Pages: 112,10.12688/f1000research.6488.1,Journal articles,Article,Interdisciplinary,,"OPR as in F1000Research (post-publication, ""Expert referees are selected and invited, and their reports and names are published alongside the article, together with the authors' responses"" - note not open participation as this is termed ""user commenting"")",1,1,0,1,1,0,0,,,
"Ford, Emily",2015,Open peer review at four STEM journals: an observational overview.,F1000Research  Volume: 4   Pages: 6,10.12688/f1000research.6005.2,Journal articles,Article,Interdisciplinary,"""Open peer review, peer review where authors' and reviewers' identities are disclosed to one another,"" ""There is no one universally accepted definition of OPR, which complicates investigations of its practices. As such, I rely on my previous definition, which broadly understands OPR as any scholarly review mechanism providing disclosure of author and referee identities to one another at any point during the peer review or publication process (Ford, 2013).""",,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Moylan, Elizabeth C.; Harold, Simon; O'Neill, Ciaran; et al.",2014,"Open, single-blind, double-blind: which peer review process do you prefer'",BMC PHARMACOLOGY & TOXICOLOGY  Volume: 15     Article Number: 55,10.1186/2050-6511-15-55,Journal articles,Article,STEM,"BMC journals ""Under open peer review, authors know who reviewed their manuscript (reviewer reports are signed) and, if the manuscript is published, the reader will also see the reviewers' comments and the authors' response. These comments are published as part of the 'pre-publication history' accompanying the published article, which also contains all versions of the manuscript and (where relevant) editors' comments.""",,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Groves, Trish; Loder, Elizabeth",2014,Prepublication histories and open peer review at The BMJ,BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL  Volume: 349     Article Number: g5394,10.1136/bmj.g5394,Journal articles,Article,STEM,"""Over the past 15 years peer reviewers for The BMJ have shown, by signing their reviews and declaring to authors and editors any relevant competing interests, that they are unafraid of transparent scientific discourse. Now we are opening up our process to make our reviewers' role as authors' critical friends visible to all. From this autumn on thebmj.com all research articles, and certain scholarly articles in The BMJ's Analysis section, will have an article tab marked 'Reviews.' Clicking on this will open the article's prepublication history, comprising all signed reviews (including those by statisticians and patient peer reviewers), previous versions of the article, the study protocol for any clinical trial, the report from The BMJ's manuscript committee meeting, and the authors' responses to the editors' and reviewers' comments. As now, reviewers will not be able to make private comments to editors, except in the rare case when a reviewer wants to express concerns about the scientific integrity of the work (www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resourcesreviewers/guidance-peer-reviewers).""",,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Kumar, Arun H S",2014,Open review system: The new trend in scientific reviewing to improve transparency and overcome biasness.,"Journal of natural science, biology, and medicine  Volume: 5   Issue: 2   Pages: 231-2",10.4103/0976-9668.136134,Journal articles,Article,STEM,,"The novel ORS, which we are introducing, is graphically represented in Figure 1. This system will be implemented for the 1st time in our flagship Journal Biology, Engineering, Medicine and Science Reports (www.bemsreports.org). All manuscripts submitted to the journal will be accepted and published online within 48 h, following the declaration of originality, honesty, authenticity and validity (DOHAV) by the authors. The manuscript will be assigned a temporary ID and will be available for anybody to make a comment on all aspects of the manuscript. The DOHAV is also a new concept, which will be an improved and extended version of the currently used copyright form adopted by all journals. We think the authors are the best judges of the rigorousness and authenticity of the work presented and hence, we are imparting this necessary responsibility with the authors by asking them to sign DOHAV before the publication of their manuscript. All manuscript will remain in the ORS process for 4 months (which we believe is an adequate time for the global audience to comment on the manuscript) following, which an editorial decision will be made to either modify the manuscript or accept it for publication with a permanent ID/DOI. We envisage introduction of ORS and DOHAV will have following two major advantages. (1) The delay in manuscripts appearing in the public domain following submission to the journal will be considerably reduced to <48 h. (2) Our system will eliminate the biasness from the review process and increase transparency in science journalism.",0,1,1,0,1,0,0,,,
"Hopewell, Sally; Collins, Gary S.; Boutron, Isabelle; et al.",2014,Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study,BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL  Volume: 349     Article Number: g4145 ,10.1136/bmj.g4145,Journal articles,Article,STEM,"""open peer review, whereby the identity of the peer reviewers is disclosed and, in some instances, the peer reviewer's comments are included alongside the published article.""",,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Rampelotto, Pabulo Henrique",2014,Opening up Peer Review in Life: Towards a Transparent and Reliable Process,"Life (Basel, Switzerland)  Volume: 4   Issue: 2   Pages: 225-6",10.3390/life4020225,Journal articles,Article,STEM,"""a new system of open peer review, under which the peer-review reports and authors' responses are published as an integral part of the final version of each article ... If reviewers do not want to reveal their identities, we will honour that request and the reviewer's report will be published 'anonymously'. In an initial test phase, authors submitting manuscripts to Life will therefore have the choice (after acceptance of their paper) to publish the reviewers' comments and their responses along with the article. To protect the impartiality of the peer-review process, the identity of the reviewers will not be revealed to the authors until after a paper is accepted for publication.""",,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Lane, Stuart N.",2014,"ESPL, Open Access and Open Review - time for some reflection",EARTH SURFACE PROCESSES AND LANDFORMS  Volume: 39   Issue: 1   Pages: 1-3,10.1002/esp.3504,Journal articles,Article,STEM,"""Through Open Review, a paper is commonly published on-line as a discussion paper, normally immediately after a paper has been pre-screened by an Editor. Reviews are then commissioned and provided on-line either anonymously or with the reviewers identifying themselves. The author(s) have the right to respond to these reviewers and these responses are also published on-line.""",,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,,,
[Anonymous],2013,PubMed Pilots Open Peer Review System,JOURNAL OF THE CANADIAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION  Volume: 79     Article Number: d194,http://www.jcda.ca/article/d194,Journal articles,Article,STEM,,"""PubMed, the widely used database of scientific literature on health and life sciences, is piloting a new system that allows colleagues to comment on any article indexed by PubMed. The recently launched PubMed Commons is 'a forum for open and constructive criticism and discussion of scientific issues.', ""Until now, conventional letters to the editor provided the scientific community with a way to criticize, question or comment on a published article. PubMed Commons now provides an opportunity for post-publication peer review that has the potential to accelerate scientific debate: comments are unmoderated, immediately posted, and can be shared or cited. It also marks a significant change in editorial control as PubMed Commons allows readers of scientific literature (not journal editors) to drive the discussions.""",0,0,1,0,0,1,0,,,
"Ryter, Stefan W.; Choi, Augustine M. K.",2013,Testing the Rebound Peer Review Concept,ANTIOXIDANTS & REDOX SIGNALING  Volume: 19   Issue: 7   Pages: 639-643,10.1089/ars.2013.5431,Journal articles,Article,STEM,"""open referees, recruited by the authors, voluntarily accept to be named and for their rescue comments to be published alongside the finished article""",,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Grandjean, Philippe; Ozonoff, David",2013,Transparency and translation of science in a modern world,ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH  Volume: 12     Article Number: 70,10.1186/1476-069X-12-70,Journal articles,Article,STEM,"""The transparency provided by Environmental Health includes open access and open peer review, with reader access to reviews, including the identity of reviewers and their statements on possible conflicts of interest""",,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Ford, Emily",2013,Defining and Characterizing Open Peer Review: A Review of the Literature,JOURNAL OF SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING  Volume: 44   Issue: 4   Pages: 311-326 ,10.3138/jsp.44-4-001,Journal articles,Article,Interdisciplinary,"""Despite the differing definitions and implementations of open peer review discussed in the literature, its general treatment suggests that the process incorporates disclosure of authors' and reviewers' identities at some point during an article's review and publication.... Five characteristics describe the openness of the review process: signed review, disclosed review, editor-mediated review, transparent review, and crowdsourced review. Three additional characteristics describe review timing, similar to traditional peer review: pre-publication review, synchronous review, and post-publication review. Most open peer review implementations exhibit more than one openness characteristic and may also exhibit more than one timing characteristic.""",,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,,,
"Sconfienza, Luca Maria; Sardanelli, Francesco",2013,Radiological journals in the online world: should we think Open',EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY  Volume: 23   Issue: 5   Pages: 1175-1177,10.1007/s00330-012-2756-z,Journal articles,Article,STEM,"""The open review process implies that not only are the reviewers aware of the authors' name/affiliation and vice versa, but also that the complete review process (i.e., reviewers' comments, authors' reply to reviewers, etc.) gets published online along with the final paper.""",,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Acord, Sophia Krzys; Harley, Diane",2013,"Credit, time, and personality: The human challenges to sharing scholarly work using Web 2.0",NEW MEDIA & SOCIETY  Volume: 15   Issue: 3   Special Issue: SI   Pages: 379-397 ,10.1177/1461444812465140,Not specified,Article,SSH,"""As reviewed in Harley and Acord (2011: 45'48), there have been a variety of experiments across disciplines with the online peer review of manuscripts submitted for publication, where commentary is openly solicited and shared by random readers, colleagues, and sometimes editor-invited reviewers, rather than exclusively organized by editors.""",,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,,,
"Guenther, Rolf W.; Dixon, Adrian K.",2013,Radiological journals in the online world: should we think Open' A response,EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY  Volume: 23   Issue: 5   Pages: 1178-1180,10.1007/s00330-013-2777-2,Journal articles,Article,STEM,,"""regarding a potential 'open review process' ... This concept represents a departure from the anonymous peer review process; it eliminates current deficits, enhances dialogue in the research community and should lead to more transparency""",1,0,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Edmunds, Scott C.",2013,Peering into peer-review at GigaScience,GIGASCIENCE  Volume: 2     Article Number: 1 ,10.1186/2047-217X-2-1,"Data, Journal articles",Article,STEM,,"As in Gigascience (from website ""GigaScience promotes open (non-anonymous) peer-review. As a default, we will pass a reviewer's name on to the authors along with the comments. However, if reviewers do not wish to have their name revealed, we will honor that request. Reviewers are also asked to declare any competing interests and to agree to Open Peer Review, which works on two levels: the authors receive the signed report (unless the referee specifically opts out) and, if the manuscript is published, the same report will be made available to the readers."")",1,1,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Kriegeskorte, Nikolaus",2012,Open evaluation: a vision for entirely transparent post-publication peer review and rating for science,FRONTIERS IN COMPUTATIONAL NEUROSCIENCE  Volume: 6     Article Number: 79,10.3389/fncom.2012.00079,Not specified,Article,Interdisciplinary,,"""As reviewed in Harley and Acord (2011: 45-48), there have been a variety of experiments across disciplines with the online peer review of manuscripts submitted for publication, where commentary is openly solicited and shared by random readers, colleagues, and sometimes editor-invited reviewers, rather than exclusively organized by editors.""",1,1,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Ietto-Gillies, Grazia",2012,The evaluation of research papers in the XXI century. The Open Peer Discussion system of the World Economics Association,FRONTIERS IN COMPUTATIONAL NEUROSCIENCE  Volume: 6,10.3389/fncom.2012.00054,Not specified,Article,SSH,"""the Open Peer Review (OPR) system developed by the World Economics Association (WEA) ... is open in the following two respects: (a) disclosure of names of authors and reviewers; and (b) inclusivity of potential reviewers in terms of paradigmatic approaches, country, and community."",","Comments on the posted paper are invited from the membership as well as solicited by the editors from experts in the field. Names of possible commentators may also be suggested by the authors. The comments are screened by the editors and then posted with the name of the commentator unless anonymity is requested. The authors can respond to the comments and their response will be posted with attribution., ""A Post-Publication Commentary section is open on the journal. Post-publication comments are sent to the editors who will decide whether to post them or not.""",1,1,1,0,1,1,0,,,
"Vinther, Siri; Nielsen, Ole Haagen; Rosenberg, Jacob; et al.",2012,"Same review quality in open versus blinded peer review in ""Ugeskrift for Laeger""",DANISH MEDICAL JOURNAL  Volume: 59   Issue: 8     Article Number: A4479,http://www.danmedj.dk/portal/page/portal/danmedj.dk/dmj_forside/PAST_ISSUE/2012/DMJ_2012_08/A4479,Journal articles,Article,STEM,,"""The objective of this study was to compare the quality of reviews produced by identifiable and anonymous reviewers, respectively.""",1,0,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Poeschl, Ulrich",2012,Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation,FRONTIERS IN COMPUTATIONAL NEUROSCIENCE  Volume: 6     Article Number: 33,10.3389/fncom.2012.00033,Journal articles,Article,STEM,"""Multi-stage OPR"" - ""(1) Publication of discussion papers before full peer review and revision: free speech, rapid publication, and public accountability of authors for their original manuscript foster innovation and deter careless submissions.
 (2) Integration of public peer review and interactive discussion prior to final publication: attract more comments than post-peer review commenting, enhance efficiency, and transparency of quality assurance, maximize information density of final papers.
 (3) Optional anonymity for designated referees: enables critical comments and questions by referees who might be reluctant to risk appearing ignorant or disrespectful ' especially when providing a voluntary community service in which they have little to gain for investing lots of effort and time.
 (4) Archiving, public accessibility, and citability of every discussion paper and interactive comment: ensure documentation of controversial scientific innovations or flaws, public recognition of commentators' contributions, and deterrence of careless submissions.","""Open access is fully compatible with traditional peer review, and in addition it enables interactive and transparent forms of review and discussion open to all interested members of the scientific community and the public (open peer review).""",1,1,1,1,1,0,0,,,
"Clark, Kristen; Tamayne, Lisa; Berry, Carol",2012,Perceived challenges to open peer review and opportunities for education,CURRENT MEDICAL RESEARCH AND OPINION  Volume: 28   Supplement: 1   Pages: S14-S14,http://www.ismpp.org/assets/docs/Education/AnnualMeeting/8thAM/PosterPresentations/perceived%20challenges%20to%20open-peer%20review%20and%20opportunities%20for%20education%20clark.pdf,Journal articles,Article,Interdisciplinary,"""Open-peer review, defined as a transparent process whereby the identities of those reviewing scientific publications are disclosed to authors""",,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Sandewall, Erik",2012,Maintaining live discussion in two-stage open peer review,FRONTIERS IN COMPUTATIONAL NEUROSCIENCE  Volume: 6     Article Number: 9,10.3389/fncom.2012.00009,Journal articles,Article,STEM,"""The concept of 'open peer review' is presently being used for several fairly different models of peer review. A basic distinction can be made between open-names peer review which is similar to traditional peer review except that the identity of the reviewers is shown openly, and open-process peer review where interested parties are invited to join the peer review process that takes place before an article is accepted for a journal or other similar venue.""","""Open peer review has been proposed for a number of reasons, in particular, for increasing the transparency of the article selection process for a journal, and for obtaining a broader basis both for feedback to the authors, and for the acceptance decision. It has also been proposed that the contents of the reviewers' comments and of the authors' responses to them may in themselves be of interest to the community of researchers in the area of the work, and that they should therefore be published and preserved.""",1,1,1,1,1,0,0,,,
"Sen, Chandan K.",2012,Rebound Peer Review: A Viable Recourse for Aggrieved Authors',ANTIOXIDANTS & REDOX SIGNALING  Volume: 16   Issue: 4   Pages: 293-296 ,10.1089/ars.2011.4424,Journal articles,Article,STEM,"""open peer review has been adopted by a few journals (6). Here, authors know who the reviewers of their work are.""",,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Lee, Christopher",2012,Open peer review by a selected-papers network,FRONTIERS IN COMPUTATIONAL NEUROSCIENCE  Volume: 6     Article Number: 1,10.3389/fncom.2012.00001,Journal articles,Article,Interdisciplinary,,"""Peer review is open (non-anonymous)""",1,0,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Janowicz, Krzysztof; Hitzler, Pascal",2012,Open and transparent: the review process of the Semantic Web journal,LEARNED PUBLISHING  Volume: 25   Issue: 1   Pages: 48-55,10.1087/20120107,Journal articles,Article,STEM,,"""reviewers can notify the editors if they want to opt-out of the open review system and stay anonymous"" NOTE: Open Reports termed ""transparency""",1,0,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Leek, Jeffrey T.; Taub, Margaret A.; Pineda, Fernando J.",2011,Cooperation between Referees and Authors Increases Peer Review Accuracy,PLOS ONE  Volume: 6   Issue: 11     Article Number: e26895,10.1371/journal.pone.0026895,Journal articles,Article,Interdisciplinary,,"""The goal of this study is to determine whether anonymous (closed) or non-anonymous (open) peer review results in more correct research being accepted.""",1,0,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Perakakis, Pandelis; Taylor, Michael; Mazza, Marco G.; et al.",2011,"Understanding the role of open peer review and dynamic academic articles: Authors' reply to ""Problems with natural selection of academic papers""",SCIENTOMETRICS  Volume: 88   Issue: 2   Pages: 669-673 ,10.1007/s11192-011-0402-1,Journal articles,Article,Interdisciplinary,,"Open PR is not a new idea and many scholars already support that it is a viable solution to the numerous deficiencies of the current evaluation system [16, 17]. Our model proposes a fully-transparent PR process, whereby reviews by referees are posted online and tagged to the article in question. This allows the implementation of a reviewer evaluation system that will provide motivation for potential reviewers [18]. Referee efforts will be acknowledged and rewarded, thus enhancing their academic standing in the field. Such a mechanism will also help to solve the ''difficult to find reviewers'' and ''time limitation of the reviewers'' problems mentioned by L. Egghe. In our system, writing a good review could be scientifically as beneficial as contributing an original article. Furthermore, open PR will sidestep other serious concerns too, such as reviewers evaluating papers outside their area of expertise, or writing a positive review as a favour, since their review will be subject to open criticism from the scientific community.
 While L. Egghe holds that PR is guided by deontological rules, this is something that is not transparent in a blind PR system. On the contrary, open PR creates a public environment where everyone can judge and where every judgment can be weighted. The NSAP model turns what constitutes a weakness for classical journals into a strength for science and society. In the open environment we advocate, a large scientific community can assess the quality of a manuscript, or even discover frauds or sources of plagiarism a lot more efficiently than is possible today by two or three anonymous and unmotivated reviewers.... The open PR system presents the author with the opportunity to address the problem of visibility by being the driving force seeking reviewers and reviews, which will likely also increase article citation rates. /",1,1,1,1,1,0,0,,,
"Boldt, Axel",2011,Extending ArXiv.org to Achieve Open Peer Review and Publishing,JOURNAL OF SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING  Volume: 42   Issue: 2   Pages: 238-242,10.3138/jsp.42.2.238,Journal articles,Article,STEM,,"I propose the following extension to the arXiv.org preprint archive. A new class of users is created, the 'editors'. Each editor works for an electronic journal. Authors, after having uploaded a preprint to the archive, may elect to submit their article for review and official publication in one of these electronic journals. An editor of that journal then decides whether the article is appropriate for the journal in terms of scope and quality. If it is not, this decision is publicly attached to the article and the process ends; if it is, the editor invites one or more referees to write public reviews, to be attached to the article. The article author may subsequently post a public rebuttal to the reviews. Based on the referee reports and rebuttals, the editor decides whether to accept, demand changes to, or reject the article. The original article, reviews, rebuttal and publication decision are published in perpetuity. If accepted, the author posts a final version of the article to arXiv.org; as a peer reviewed and officially published article, it is visibly set apart from mere preprints and added to the electronic journal's collection of published articles. Rejected articles may be submitted to another electronic journal. Reviews should be signed with the referee's full name and affiliation. This maximizes transparency and allows referees to receive academic credit for their work.... It will also be desirable to attach a moderated discussion forum to each article, as a natural gathering place of interested researchers. The quality of these forums would serve as a criterion to differentiate electronic journals from each other.",1,1,1,1,1,1,1,,,
"Groves, Trish",2010,Is open peer review the fairest system' Yes,BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL  Volume: 341     Article Number: c6424,10.1136/bmj.c6424,Journal articles,Article,STEM,"Varying definitions of 'open' review include asking a wider community to come to the journal's website and rate articles.5 Open review at the BMJ currently means that all reviewers sign their reports, declare their competing interests, and desist from making additional covert comments to the editors.6 ",open peer review at the BMJ = OpenID',1,1,1,0,0,0,0,,,
"Khan, Karim",2010,Is open peer review the fairest system' No,BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL  Volume: 341     Article Number: c6425,10.1136/bmj.c6425,Journal articles,Article,STEM,,"OpenID - ""Open peer review is associated with the risk that an inferior paper written by a senior authority in the field may receive a 'soft' or generous review from a junior reviewer who either seeks to curry favour or fears an honest review would lead to payback at some future time.""",1,0,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"van Rooyen, Susan; Delamothe, Tony; Evans, Stephen J. W.",2010,Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial,BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL  Volume: 341     Article Number: c5729,10.1136/bmj.c5729,Journal articles,Article,STEM,,"""signed reviews might be posted on the web"", ""Reviewers who knew that their report might be posted online spent longer on the task than those in the control group, so adopting open peer review might result in the process feeling even more arduous to reviewers than it currently does.""",1,1,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Sekhar, D. M. R.; Aery, Naresh Chander",2010,Open Review of Science Publications,ACCOUNTABILITY IN RESEARCH-POLICIES AND QUALITY ASSURANCE  Volume: 17   Issue: 5 ,10.1080/08989621.2010.511548,Not specified,Article,Interdisciplinary,,"""Even peer reviewed journals may follow open review to improve credibility of the journals by publishing the comment and the identity of the peer.""",1,1,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Bekkering, Geertruida E.; Kleijnen, Jos",2008,Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany,EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS  Volume: 9   Supplement: 1   Pages: S5-S29,10.1007/s10198-008-0122-5,Not specified,Article,STEM,"""implement open peer review by publishing both the comments of the reviewers and their names""",,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Baggs, Judith Gedney; Broome, Marion E.; Dougherty, Molly C.; et al.",2008,Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals,JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING  Volume: 64   Issue: 2   Pages: 131-138,10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04816.x,Journal articles,Article,STEM,,"""Double-blinding was the method preferred by 93.6% of reviewers, although some identified some advantages to an unblinded open review process."", ""Reviewers were asked, 'Which of the following are advantages of making reviews open to the public''. They could mark any or all of five possible advantages, which many did (Table 1). For the 87 responses to 'Other', content analysis demonstrated that by far the most frequently discussed advantage (n = 51; 58’6%) related to use of open review as an educational opportunity, for novice researchers, authors, reviewers, or students, or as a learning tool even for those with more experience. As one respondent put it, 'Writing reviews requires knowledge and skill ' all reviewers and prospective reviewers can learn about this skill by reading a variety of them'.""",1,1,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Stefanou, Spiro E.; Kerstens, Kristiaan",2008,Applied production analysis unveiled in open peer review: introductory remarks,JOURNAL OF PRODUCTIVITY ANALYSIS  Volume: 30   Issue: 1   Pages: 1-+,10.1007/s11123-008-0091-9,Not specified,Article,STEM,"a process of open peer review, a variation on the widespread use of single- and double-blind refereeing processes in most economic journals where the identity of both authors and referees is common knowledge throughout the refereeing process.... The availability of the referee reports is the essence of the open peer reviewing process with the clear separation between initial manuscripts and the replies to the referees shedding light on the context of discovery.'",,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Aguilar-Ruiz, Jesus S.; Moore, Jason H.; Ritchie, Marylyn D.",2008,Filling the gap between biology and computer science,BIODATA MINING  Volume: 1     Article Number: UNSP 1,10.1186/1756-0381-1-1,Journal articles,Article,STEM,"""In order to make the peer review process transparent Bio-Data Mining has adopted an open-review policy. Reviewers' names are included on the peer review reports and are made publically available upon acceptance of an article. We believe that this will foster constructive reviews, and therefore enrich the criticism. This policy will contribute greatly in driving young researchers to improve the quality of their articles.""",,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Menz, Hylton B.; Potter, Mike J.; Borthwick, Alan M.; et al.",2008,Welcome to Journal of Foot and Ankle Research: a new open access journal for foot health professionals,JOURNAL OF FOOT AND ANKLE RESEARCH  Volume: 1     Article Number: 1,10.1186/1757-1146-1-1,Not specified,Article,STEM,"As BMC standard ""JFAR operates a fully open peer review system, meaning that the identity of the authors is known to the reviewers, and vice versa. There is no evidence that such a system produces better quality reviews or changes reviewers' recommendations compared to traditional ""closed"" peer review [24]. However, open peer review is a far more transparent system, potentially fosters greater accountability on the part of reviewers, and may also prevent potentially serious abuses of the system (such as reviewers stealing authors' ideas or intentionally slowing the progress of a competitor's manuscript) [21]. All correspondence pertaining to the peer review process, including peer reviewers' comments, authors' replies and revisions of the manuscript will be freely accessible from the 'prepublication history' section""",,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Dougherty, Molly (Mickey) C.",2007,Open peer review 3 years later,NURSING RESEARCH  Volume: 56   Issue: 5   Pages: 295-295 ,10.1097/01.NNR.0000289496.14790.bb,Not specified,Article,STEM,,"OPR in Nursing Research journal - OpenID, OpenReports",1,1,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Liu, S. V.",2007,"Why are people reluctant to join in open review' (vol 447, pg 1052, 2007)",NATURE  Volume: 448   Issue: 7152   Pages: 408-408,10.1038/448408e,Journal articles,Letter,STEM,,"OPR as in 2006 Nature experiment (""between 1 June and 30 September 2006, we invited authors of newly submitted papers that survived the initial editorial assessment to have them hosted on an open server on the Internet for public comment. For those who agreed, we simultaneously subjected their papers to standard peer review. We checked all comments received for open display for potential legal problems or inappropriate language, and in the event none was held back. All comments were required to be signed. Once the standard process was complete (that is, once all solicited referees' comments had been received), we also gathered the comments received on the server, and removed the paper."", http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05535.html)",1,1,1,0,1,0,0,,,
"Faloutsos, Michalis; Rejaie, Reza; Banerjee, Anirban",2007,You must be joking ... A historic open reviewing at Global Internet '07,ACM SIGCOMM COMPUTER COMMUNICATION REVIEW  Volume: 37   Issue: 3   Pages: 79-82 ,10.1145/1273445.1273457,Conference papers,Article,STEM,"""Global Internet 2007, chaired by Rejaie and Faloutsos, had an open review process: the names of the reviewers were revealed to the authors and, in addition, reviews of accepted papers are published in a website for anyone to see.""",,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Liu, Shi V.",2007,Why are people reluctant to join in open review',NATURE  Volume: 447   Issue: 7148   Pages: 1052-1052,10.1038/4471052d,Journal articles,Letter,STEM,,OPR as in 2006 Nature experiment,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,,,
[Anonymous],2007,Nature abandons open peer review,PSYCHOLOGIST  Volume: 20   Issue: 3   Pages: 133-133,https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-20/edition-3/news,Journal articles,Article,STEM,,OPR as in 2006 Nature experiment,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,,,
"Jones, Alan Wayne",2007,"The distribution of forensic journals, reflections on authorship practices, peer-review and role of the impact factor",FORENSIC SCIENCE INTERNATIONAL  Volume: 165   Issue: 2-3   Pages: 115-128,10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.05.013,Not specified,Article,STEM,"""The so-called open-access journals, which are increasing in number, such as those produced by the Biomedical Central (BMC), e.g. BMC Clinical Pharmacology, post on the web the entire pre-publication history of the manuscripts accepted for publication. The date the manuscript was received, the reviewer reports and the names of the reviewers as well as the response from the authors and any rewrites of the manuscript are available on-line for all to read.""",,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Stamm, Thomas; Meyer, Ulrich; Wiesmann, Hans-Peter; et al.",2007,"A retrospective analysis of submissions, acceptance rate, open peer review operations, and prepublication bias of the multidisciplinary open access journal Head & Face Medicine",Head & face medicine  Volume: 3   Pages: 27 ,10.1186/1746-160X-3-27,Journal articles,Article,STEM,,"As Head&Face ""Head & Face Medicine operates an open peer-review system, where the reviewers' names are included on the peer-review reports. In addition, if the article is published, the named reports are published online alongside the article as part of an 'Open Peer Review reports'.""",1,1,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Pharaon, Sadek",2007,Open peer review: a route to democracy,JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF MEDICINE  Volume: 100   Issue: 1   Pages: 9-9 ,10.1258/jrsm.100.1.9-a,Journal articles,Article,STEM,,"As in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine (2007) + Open Interaction ""Anybody submitting an article can discuss with the peer-reviewer any differences of opinion, without causing any bitter after-sentiments.""",1,0,0,1,0,0,0,,,
"Morrison, Jill",2006,The case for open peer review,MEDICAL EDUCATION  Volume: 40   Issue: 9   Pages: 830-831,10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02573.x,Not specified,Article,STEM,,"""unblinded, open peer review""",1,0,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Abbasi, Kamran",2006,JRSM introduces open peer review,JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF MEDICINE  Volume: 99   Issue: 8   Pages: 379-379,10.1258/jrsm.99.8.379,Not specified,Article,STEM,"""open peer review'where authors and reviewers know each others' identities'from this September onwards. It will become one of the world's very few journals with an open peer review process. The reviewer's comments will not yet be published though that is the logical next step.""",,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Richards, L",2006,Publishing - Nature trial nurtures open peer review,CHEMISTRY & INDUSTRY  Issue: 12   Pages: 4-4,,Not specified,News item,STEM,,OPR as in 2006 Nature experiment,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,,,
"Ross, JS; Gross, CP; Desai, MM; et al.",2006,Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance,JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION  Volume: 295   Issue: 14   Pages: 1675-1680,10.1001/jama.295.14.1675,Conference papers,Article,STEM,"NOT OpenID - Mean Single-Blind RVW ""Abstract review included the author's name and institution (open review) from 2000-2001"" -",,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Farthing, MJG",2006,Authors and publication practices,SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS  Volume: 12   Issue: 1   Special Issue: SI   Pages: 41-52,10.1007/PL00022267,Journal articles,Article,STEM,"""'open' peer review in which both the authors and the reviewers are known to each other.""",,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Kearney, MH; Freda, MC",2005,Nurse editors' views on the peer review process,RESEARCH IN NURSING & HEALTH  Volume: 28   Issue: 6   Pages: 444-452,10.1002/nur.20104,Journal articles,Article,STEM,"""open review (both author and reviewer identities are known to each other)""","""The majority of nurse editors reported that blinding was important in peer review, tomaintain objectivity and avoid negative personal or professional consequences. The minority who saw potential benefits of open review valued increased transparency in the reviewing and editorial decision-making process."", ""one journal's recent move toward open review still retain anonymity of both parties until after a decision is made (Dougherty, 2004).""",1,0,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Stamm, Thomas",2005,Head & Face Medicine - a new journal for 'intra-interdisciplinary' science. Why' When' Where',Head & face medicine  Volume: 1   Pages: 1 ,10.1186/1746-160X-1-1,Journal articles,Article,STEM,,OPR as in BMC journal Head&Face,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Dougherty, MC",2004,Open peer review - A first step,NURSING RESEARCH  Volume: 53   Issue: 4   Pages: 213-213 ,10.1097/00006199-200407000-00001,Journal articles,Article,STEM,"""Open peer review, narrowly defined, means that the reviewer signs his or her review.""","""To begin the open review process, we selected manuscripts that received informative, constructive reviews (Beck in this issue; Choe and colleagues, forthcoming). The authors and reviewers gave permission for posting their reviews after the fact (a deviance from usual open peer review). Correspondence from the author and editor are posted also (see Open Manuscript Review highlighted on the home page at http://sonweb.unc.edu/nursing-research-editor).""",1,1,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Ludbrook, J",2003,Peer review of biomedical manuscripts: an update,JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE  Volume: 10   Issue: 5   Pages: 540-542,10.1016/S0967-5868(03)00091-2,Journal articles,Article,STEM,"""truly open peer review, in which the names of authors and their affiliations are revealed to reviewers, and the names of reviewers to authors""",,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Warr, WA",2003,Evaluation of an experimental chemistry preprint server,JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND COMPUTER SCIENCES  Volume: 43   Issue: 2   Pages: 362-373,10.1021/ci025627a,Journal articles,Article,STEM,,"""In theory, preprints, together with version control and online discussion, could be a useful compromise: rapid prepublication followed by open peer review, before publication in a traditional journal.""",0,0,1,0,1,0,0,,,
"Godlee, F",2002,"Making reviewers visible - Openness, accountability, and credit",JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION  Volume: 287   Issue: 21   Pages: 2762-2765,10.1001/jama.287.21.2762,Not specified,Article,STEM,,"""There are strong arguments in favor of retaining reviewer anonymity.... To counter these concerns, I suggest 4 arguments in favor of open review""",1,0,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Melero, R; Lopez-Santovena, F",2001,Referees' attitudes toward open peer review and electronic transmission of papers,FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL  Volume: 7   Issue: 6   Pages: 521-527,,Not specified,Article,SSH,"""The peer review system is opened when the authors know the reviewers and vice versa""",,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Lee, M; Om, K; Koh, J",2000,The bias of sighted reviewers in research proposal evaluation: A comparative analysis of blind andopen review in Korea,SCIENTOMETRICS  Volume: 48   Issue: 1   Pages: 99-116,10.1023/A:1005636503358,Grant proposals,Article,Interdisciplinary,,"discusses blinded vs ""sighted review""",1,0,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Walsh, E; Rooney, M; Appleby, L; et al.",2000,Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial,BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY  Volume: 176   Pages: 47-51,10.1192/bjp.176.1.47,Journal articles,Article,STEM,,"""For an open system to be practical, reviewers would have to be in favour of signing, and the quality of reviews produced ought not to be of inferior quality.""",1,0,0,0,0,0,0,,,
Nature Neuroscience,1999,Pros and cons of open peer review,NATURE NEUROSCIENCE  Volume: 2   Issue: 3   Pages: 197-198,,Journal articles,Article,STEM,,"""Anonymous peer review, despite the criticisms often leveled against it, is used in more or less the same form by the great majority of scientific journals. The British Medical Journal (BMJ), however, has recently taken the bold step of abolishing referee anonymity, and now requires all referees to identify themselves to the authors. The editor, Richard Smith, justifies this move primarily on ethical grounds, arguing1 that 'a court with an unidentified judge makes us think immediately of totalitarian states and the world of Franz Kafka'. Many other journals, including Nature Neuroscience, will await the results of this experiment with interest. Yet, whatever the results, there are a number of reasons to think that open review may not be the best solution for all journals.""",1,0,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"van Rooyen, S; Godlee, F; Evans, S; et al.",1999,Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial,BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL  Volume: 318   Issue: 7175   Pages: 23-27,http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23,Journal articles,Article,STEM,"""asking reviewers to have their identity revealed to the authors of the paper""",,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Bingham, CM; Higgins, G; Coleman, R; et al.",1998,The Medical Journal of Australia Internet peer-review study,LANCET  Volume: 352   Issue: 9126   Pages: 441-445,10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11510-0,Journal articles,Article,STEM,"""Research and review articles that had been accepted for publication in The Medical Journal of Australia (MJA) were published together with the reviewers' reports on the worldwide web, with the consent of authors and referees. Selected readers' e-mailed comments were electronically published as additional commentary; authors could reply or revise their paper in response to readers' comments. Articles were edited and published in print after this open review.""",,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,,,
"Lightfoot, JT",1998,A different method of teaching peer review systems,ADVANCES IN PHYSIOLOGY EDUCATION  Volume: 19   Issue: 1   Pages: S57-S61 ,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9841565,Journal articles,Article,SSH,"""In the open system, the author knows the identity of the reviewer and the reviewer knows the identity of the author.""",,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"JUSTESEN, DR",1995,AN EXERCISE IN OPEN PEER-REVIEW,BIOELECTROMAGNETICS  Volume: 16   Issue: 1   Pages: 1-1,10.1002/bem.2250160102,Journal articles,Article,STEM,"The model of open peer review that was chosen for this exercise is that of the late Paul Arthur Schilpp of Northwestern University. Examples of the model are sizable tomes edited by Schilpp j1944, 19491. In these works a summing-up of theoretical/philosophical reflections by Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell were thoroughly vetted by some of their peers. These commentaries were commented on in turn by the featured author. There is a downside to open peer review. It is extremely time consuming. An author must be recruited whose works have garnered editorial interest and acclaim. He or she must then be willing to submit a paper for an initial anonymous peer review. If the review is favorable, the author must submit the opus to scrutiny by a team of 'open' reviewers. The ensuing critiques may themselves require outside review. Finally, the author composes replies to reviewers.",,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,,,
"BORNSTEIN, RF",1993,COSTS AND BENEFITS OF REVIEWER ANONYMITY - A SURVEY OF JOURNAL EDITORS AND MANUSCRIPT REVIEWERS,JOURNAL OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY  Volume: 8   Issue: 3   Pages: 355-370,,Journal articles,Article,SSH,"""a system wherein reviewers' identities are routinely revealed to authors of submitted manuscripts (i.e., an ""open review"" system)",,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"ARMSTRONG, JS; LUSK, EJ",1983,THE ACCURACY OF ALTERNATIVE EXTRAPOLATION MODELS - ANALYSIS OF A FORECASTING COMPETITION THROUGH OPEN PEER-REVIEW,JOURNAL OF FORECASTING  Volume: 2   Issue: 3   Pages: 259-,,Journal articles,Article,SSH,"In 1982, the Journal of Forecasting published the results of a forecasting competition organized by Spyros Makridakis (Makridakis era/,. 1982)'. In the belief that this study was of major importance, we decided to obtain a more complete discussion of the results. We do not believe that 'the data speak for themselves''. In seeking peer review of the Makridakis competition, we drew heavily upon the procedures used by Behatioral and Brain Sciences, a journal that has been one of the pioneers for open peer review (Harnad. 1979), One objective was to provide a forum for discussion by experts who were likely to have different perspectives. We invited 14 outside experts to write commentaries on the Makridakis competition. Of these, eight agreed and seven completed their papers. The commentators are all from different organizations. Three are practitioners and four are academicians. We asked these commentators to address any aspect of the original paper. They were given approximately five months to write their commentary. We reviewed each commentary and made suggestions for change (sometimes with more than one round of revisions). Later, the commentators were provided with papers by the other commentators and were given a further opportunity for revisions. Finally, the commentators and authors were provided with edited versions of all papers and were given an opportunity to clarify their own papers and to suggest clarifications in other papers. A second objective was to obtain the viewpoints of the original authors speaking freely without any need for agreement from their co-authors. We also sent the commentaries to each of the nine original authors. We received replies from seven of the nine authors.",,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,,,
"Jubb, M.",2016,Peer review: The current landscape and future trends,"Learned Publishing, 29, 1",10.1002/leap.1008,Journal articles,Article,Interdisciplinary,"""Open review, where both authors' and reviewers' names are revealed."" (Jubb 2016, 16)",,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Larson, Bradley P., and Kevin C. Chung",2012,A Systematic Review of Peer Review for Scientific Manuscripts,HAND 7 (1) 37'44,10.1007/s11552-012-9392-6,Journal articles,Article,STEM,"""A few of the papers discussed the benefits and downsides to open peer review. Open peer review can encourage reviewers to be more complete and constructive when their identity is not obscured [10]. Under an open peer-review system, referees are able to receive acknowledgment by authors instead of remaining anonymous [13]. As with single-blinded reviews, open peer review makes the author's identity known to the reviewer. This has the potential to expose an author to biases regarding their previous work, nationality, or gender [28, 46]. However, conflicting studies argue that open review does not bring any real advantages and requires further evaluation [13, 19].""(Larson and Chung 2012, 42)",,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Pontille, David, and Didier Torny",2015,From Manuscript Evaluation to Article Valuation: The Changing Technologies of Journal Peer Review,Human Studies 38 (1): 57'79,10.1007/s10746-014-9335-z,Journal articles,Article,SSH,,"""Developed as an alternative to the single blind as from the early 1980s, 'open review' was for a long time limited to just a few journals which encouraged or required their reviewers to sign their reports (Knox 1981).""",1,0,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Ware, Mark",2008,"Peer Review: Benefits, Perceptions and Alternatives (Publishing Research Consortium Summary Paper 4)",,http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download'doi=10.1.1.214.9676&rep=rep1&type=pdf,Journal articles,Community report,Interdisciplinary,"""A newer approach to dealing with the criticisms of single-blind review is open peer review: in this model, the author's and reviewers' identities are known to each other, and the reviewers' names and (optionally) their reports are published alongside the paper. Advocates of open review see it as much fairer because, they argue, somebody making an important judgement on the work of others should not do so in secret. It is also argued that reviewers will produce better work and avoid offhand, careless or rude comments when their identity is known.' (Ware 2008, 6)",,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Birukou, Aliaksandr et al",2011,Alternatives to Peer Review: Novel Approaches for Research Evaluation,Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 5 (December),10.3389/fncom.2011.00056,Journal articles,Article,STEM,"""open peer review where both authors and reviewers are aware of each other's identity"" (Birukou et al. 2011)",,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Mulligan, Adrian, Louise Hall, and Ellen Raphael",2013,Peer Review in a Changing World: An International Study Measuring the Attitudes of Researchers,Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64 (1): 132'61,10.1002/asi.22798,Journal articles,Article,Interdisciplinary,"""Open peer review, in which both the reviewer and the author are known to one another, increases transparency and encourages honest open responses.""(Mulligan, Hall, and Raphael 2013, 133)",,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,,,
Research Information Network,2010,Peer Review: A Guide for Researchers,,http://www.rin.ac.uk/system/files/attachments/Peer-review-guide-screen.pdf,Journal articles,Community report,Interdisciplinary,"""Open review: this term is used to cover at least three different kinds of arrangement with increasing levels of transparency:
 ' the identities of reviewers and submitters are revealed to each other
 ' the signed reviews themselves are passed in full to the applicants, and
 ' authors' draft publications are made available on websites and reviews and comments are invited from anyone who wishes to do so""",,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,,,
Sense About Science,2012,Peer Review: The Nuts and Bolts: A Guide for Early Career Researchers (Standing up for Science 3),,http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/resources/99/Peer-review_The-nuts-and-bolts.pdf,Journal articles,Community report,Interdisciplinary,"""OPEN REVIEW: At its most basic, reviewers know who the authors are and the authors know who the reviewers are. It can also mean inclusion of the reviewers' names and/or reports alongside the published paper, comments from others [subject community or wider public] at pre-publication stage, or various combinations of these.""",,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,,,
"Tennant, J and Mounce, R",2015,Open Research Glossary,,10.6084/m9.figshare.1482094.v1,Journal articles,Glossary,Interdisciplinary,"Open review - when reviews are made openly available, typically alongside the article.' / 'Signed peer review - when the individual reviews are publicly signed by those who conducted them.' (Tennant and Mounce 2015)",,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Sumner, Tamara and Buckingham Shum, Tamara",1996,Open Peer Review & Argumentation: Loosening the Paper Chains on Journals,"Ariadne, Issue 5",http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue5/jime,Journal articles,Article,Interdisciplinary,"""The article under review and the reviewers' initial comments are then published on the Web, and the review process moves into a phase of open peer review, in which authors, reviewers and readers can engage in debate.""",,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,,,
"Armstrong, J. Scott",1997,"Peer Review for Journals: Evidence on Quality Control, Fairness, and Innovation",Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1): 63'84,doi:10.1007/s11948-997-0017-3.,Journal articles,Article,Interdisciplinary,,"publish controversial papers along with comments by reviewers' (Armstrong 1997, 75)",0,1,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Ware, Mark",2009,Current Peer Review Practice and Perceptions: The View from the Field,"Against the Grain 21, no. 3",doi:10.7771/2380-176X.2307,Journal articles,Article,Interdisciplinary,"A newer approach to dealing with bias is open peer review, in which author's and reviewer's names are known to each other, and the reviewer's name (and optionally, their report) is published alongside the article.' (Ware 2009, 20)",,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Shatz, David",1996,Is Peer Review Overrated',The Monist 79 (4): 536'63,,Journal articles,Article,SSH,"Open peer review is review by the scholarly community at large, instead of a few anonymous referees along with an editor or board.' (Shatz 1996, 538)",,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,,,
"Nentwich, Michael",2005,Quality Control in Academic Publishing: Challenges in the Age of Cyberscience,Poiesis & Praxis 3 (3): 181'98,doi:10.1007/s10202-004-0071-8,Journal articles,Article,SSH,"Open peer review/commentary While traditionally, the research community at large only finds out about the submission once it is printed, open forms of reviewing in e-journals announce that a paper has been submitted. The submission is uploaded to the journal's server and everyone can have a look at it. In the case of revisions (along the path from the original submission to the final published text) the interim steps are also visible. In addition, the editor does not select referees, but opens a general, open debate about the manuscript. Self-appointed referees (Sumner and Shum 1997) comment on the merits of the paper online. In general, both the author's and the public referees' identities are not disguised. While there are good arguments in favour of anonymity, the primary argument against it is that it seems wrong for somebody to make an important judgement on the work of others in secret (Smith 1999). Although, in principle, the technology allows for anonymity, it is not implemented because it would not suit well the otherwise open character of the procedure. The philosophy behind open peer review is basically that it is expected that the more people participate in the review process, the better the result. An open, non-anonymous procedure would be more ''democratic'', less determined by a single editor or a small board. In addition, the author is not only at the receiving end of a decision already taken, but in a position to participate in the review process through interactive means. While reviewing in the traditional model is a solitary activity, the open communicative process may lead to a discourse in which the ideas are refined and shaped.' (Nentwich 2005, 183)",,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,,,
"Shaffer, Kris P",2014,A Proposal for Open Peer Review,"Music Theory Online 20, no. 1 (February 1, 2014)",http://mtosmt.org/issues/mto.14.20.1/mto.14.20.1.shaffer.html,Journal articles,Article,SSH,"While multiple practices exist that can be considered manifestations of open peer review, open peer review in its fullest sense takes the scholarly discussion that traditionally follows publication ' and moves it pre-publication, rendering them part of the review process. Open peer review ensures high visibility for the best work, extensive vetting by the scholarly community pre-publication, and a timely publication process, all the while maintaining high standards for peer-reviewed publication.... Since this open peer-review model would be based around pre-published material on the web, it would generally lead to shorter publications than traditional publishing. Articles that work well for open peer review tend to be shorter, much more targeted, and have a much shorter bibliography than traditional articles, even when they represent the same level of research quality. Lastly, just as authors would need to be more comfortable sharing ideas that may not be camera-ready, reviewers need to be more comfortable sharing their comments, including critical ones, on the open web for such a project to work. Blind peer review protects reviewers as much as authors. Open peer review may be a non-starter for those used to providing their comments anonymously.' (Shaffer 2014, 1)",,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,,,
"Hames, Irene",2014,The Changing Face of Peer Review,Science Editing 1 (1): 9'12,doi:10.6087/kcse.2014.1.9,Journal articles,Article,Interdisciplinary,"'Open' peer review, which originally meant just the author knowing who the reviewer was, can now cover a number of things, e.g., the reviewers' names being disclosed with the published article, reviewer reports being published (with or without names), the wider community being able to comment during review, and various combinations of these.' (Hames 2014, 10)",,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,,,
"Fitzpatrick, Kathleen, and Avi Santo",2016,Open Review: A Study of Contexts and Practices (The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation White Paper),,https://mellon.org/media/filer_public/20/ff/20ff03e0-17b0-465b-ae82-1ed7c8cef362/mediacommons-open-review-white-paper-final.pdf,Not specified,,Interdisciplinary,"Openness: As previously stated, openness can take several forms. Options include public access to and participation in the review process; removing the anonymity amongst authors and reviewers; establishing a means of greater back-and-forth between authors and reviewers and amongst reviewers. Each option presents benefits and challenges. For example, making the review process public can help render scholarly processes transparent, but may also blur distinctions between peer groups, as individuals with varying degrees and forms of expertise become parªticipants. Of course, the latter is only a 'downside' if this is not a desired outcome of openness. Ultimately, open review communities must determine the types and degrees of openness they will pursue in relation to the desired outcomes of the peer review process. Broadly, decisions about openness encompass: the choice between anonymity, pseudonymity, and transparency in representing reviewer and author identities; the choice to open up the review process to public viewing and/or participation; and the choice to allow and encourage reciprocity between authors and reviewers, as well as amongst reviewers.' (Fitzpatrick and Santo 2016, 18)",,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,,,
"Shotton, David",2012,The Five Stars of Online Journal Articles - a Framework for Article Evaluation,"D-Lib Magazine 18, no. 1/2 (January 2012)",10.1045/january2012-shotton,Journal articles,Article,Interdisciplinary,"""The whole review process is entirely transparent. Each submitted manuscript is immediately made available on the journal's website. Reviews and comments from readers are welcomed, and are considered alongside the formal peer reviews solicited from experts by the journal. All the reviews, the author's responses, and the original and final versions of the article are published, and the appointed reviewers and editors are acknowledged by name in the final version. BMJ Open practices such open peer review, and the Semantic Web Journal strongly encourages it, while allowing reviewers the option of remaining anonymous.""",,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,,,
"Ware, Mark",2011,Peer Review: Recent Experience and Future Directions,New Review of Information Networking 16 (1): 23'53,10.1080/13614576.2011.566812,Journal articles,Article,Interdisciplinary,"The term open review is used confusingly to refer to several related but different variants of peer review, and it is worth taking a moment to identify these since it is not always clear in debates over the merits of open peer review exactly what is being referred to. (See also Hodgkinson 2007.) The ""openness"" in review can refer to: 
 ' the lack of blinding of the reviewer's identity. There can be several variants of this: the reviewers' names can be made known to the author (that is, the reports are signed) but are not made public (as at the BMJ, the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine and BioMed Central medical journals), or alternatively the reviewers' names can be made public and attached to the published paper. It is also possible for the reviewers to remain anonymous during the process of review but for their names subsequently to be revealed and published alongside the paper. Another variant is to allow the author to nominate the referees (as at Biology Direct).
 ' access to the reviewer's reports and the associated author responses and other documentation. The review process can take place in the open, with the submitted manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses and editor's comments etc. made available in real time; this is the approach adopted at the journal Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics. Alternatively, the reviewing documents can be published simultaneously with the paper (e.g. as at The EMBO Journal ). An additional requirement can be that the reviewer does not provide confidential comments to the editor in addition to the report that is made available to the author.
 ' the pool of people able to comment on the submitted manuscripts, i.e. opening this up to the wider community rather than relying on two or three reviewers selected by the editor. This approach can take place after publication (see Post-publication peer review, below) or prior to publication (as at Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics or at the Nature peer review trial). The intended reviewer pool can be the wider research community (perhaps including regions under-represented among reviewers), statisticians or other professionals, or even patients as proposed at the Journal of Participatory Medicine (Shashok 2010).' (Ware 2011)",,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,,,
"Fitzpatrick, Kathleen, and Katherine Rowe",2010,Keywords for Open Peer Review,Logos 21 (3): 133'41,10.1163/095796511X560024,Journal articles,Article,SSH,"""A core principle of open review is the provision that the texts under review and reviewers' comments will remain available."", ""In the context of peer review, an open process may involve named or anonymous participants. For the many reasons discussed in this essay, SQ concluded that participants in our open vetting should be named (see 'Translation effects', 'Accountability' and 'Peer-to-peer reviewing').""","As Shakespeare Quarterly's open peer review experiment in partnership with Media-Commons Press ""In the spring of 2010, Shakespeare Quarterly (SQ) designed and mplemented a hybrid review process for its special issue 61:3 'Shakespeare and New Media,' guest edited by Rowe.2 After researching different modes of digital publication and consulting the scholarship on peer review, the editors decided to test the opportunities and challenges offered by online open reviewing.3 For this experiment, the editors adapted SQ's established procedures to include a public and named phase of vetting, open to any reviewer but actively inviting those with relevant expertise. Running from 10 March to 5 May 2010, the process drew a self-selected community of Shakespeareans and others with expertise in media history.""",1,1,1,0,0,0,0,,,
"McCormack, Nancy",2009,"Peer Review and Legal Publishing: What Law Librarians Need to Know about Open, Single-Blind, and Double-Blind Reviewing","Law
 Library Journal 101, 1 (2009): 59'70",http://www.aallnet.org/mm/Publications/llj/LLJ-Archives/Vol-101/pub_llj_v101n01/2009-03.pdf,Journal articles,Article,SSH,""" Open peer review, as the name suggests, does not attempt to mask the identity of authors or reviewers. """,,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Peters, Douglas P., and Stephen J. Ceci",1982,"Peer-Review Practices of Psychological Journals: The Fate of Published Articles, Submitted Again",Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2): 187'195,10.1017/S0140525X00011183,Journal articles,Article,STEM,"(Peters and Ceci 1982a, 194) define 'open review' as being synonymous with Harnad's 'open commentary': ""A further extension of author involvement and a move toward more openness and accountability in the review process can be seen in the recent suggestions for (and implementation of) an ""open peer commentary"" or ""open review"" system (Harnad 1979) in this journal (and its model, Current Anthropology). The basic idea is to complement the conventional closed peer-review system by giving the authors of accepted (refereed) articles the opportunity to respond openly to criticism. With the article, commentaries (from first-round referees and others), and the author's formal response published together in their entirety, readers of the journal can have a chance to examine and appraise this process of ""creative disagreement"" and form their own opinions as to the merit of an individual's work.""",,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,,,
"Armstrong, J. Scott",1982,Barriers to Scientific Contributions: The Author's Formula,"Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no. 2 (June 1982): 197'199",,Journal articles,Article,STEM,"""an open reviewing system would be preferable. It would be more equitable and more efficient. Knowing that they would have to defend their views before their peers should provide referees with the motivation to do a good job. Also, as a side benefit, referees would be recognized for the work they had done (at least for those papers that were published). Open peer review would also improve communication. Referees and authors could discuss difficult issues to find ways to improve a paper, rather than dismissing it. Frequently, the review itself provides useful information. Should not these contributions be shared' Interested readers should have access to the reviews of the published papers. For important issues, referees could publish their review along with the paper.""",,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,,,
"Hames, Irene",2007,Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice,John Wiley & Sons,,Journal articles,Book,Interdisciplinary,"""In open peer review, the authors know the identity of the reviewers.""",,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Regazzi, John J.",2015,Scholarly Communications: A History from Content as King to Content as Kingmaker,Rowman & Littlefield,,Journal articles,Book,Interdisciplinary,"Another concept gaining popularity is open peer review. In the open peer-review process, reviewer names are included on the review reports. The author knows the names of the peer reviewers. If the journal article or paper is published, the peer-review reports with names are also published online, along with the prepublication history.... In another form of the open peer review, scientists can sign up with a journal to serve as a reviewer for articles yet to be published or volunteer to peer review articles needing assessment. The articles and reviews are posted online.",,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,,,
"Morrison, Heather",2009,Scholarly Communication for Librarians,Elsevier,,Journal articles,Book,Interdisciplinary,"""Open peer review has two possible meanings: either everyone knows who both reviewer and author are, or review is open to anyone (sometimes both these conditions may apply).""",,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,,,
"Konkiel, Stacy",2014,Impact Challenge Day 19: Establish Your Expertise with Open Peer Review,"Impactstory Blog, November 21, 2014",http://blog.impactstory.org/impact-challenge-open-peer-review/,Journal articles,Blog post,Interdisciplinary,"Shades of Open Peer Review
 In recent years, scientists have increasingly called for an Open alternative to traditional peer review. This has manifested in journals adopting Open Peer Review (OPR), researchers taking to their blogs to review already-published work, and the proliferation of Open and Post-publication Peer Review sites like Faculty of 1000, PubPeer, and Publons. Each shade of OPR has its advantages and disadvantages. Let’s take a closer look.
 - Open Peer Review for journals:Here’s how Open Peer Reviews work, more or less: reviewers are assigned to a paper, and they know the author’s identity. They review the paper and sign their name. The reviews are then submitted to the editor and author (who now knows their reviewers’ identities, thanks to the signed reviews). When the paper is published, the signed reviews are published alongside it. Journals including BMJ and PeerJ require or allow Open Peer Reviews. Participating in journal-based OPR can be a good way to experiment with OPR as it’s officially sanctioned by the author, journal, and reviewer alike. One drawback to this type of Open Peer Review is that journals sometimes do not provide permanent identifiers for the reviews themselves, making it difficult to track the reach and impact of your review rather than for the journal article you’ve reviewed. Luckily, PeerJ is working to change that–they’re now issuing DOIs for Open peer reviews, which comprise 40% of their reviews. 
-Third-party Open and Post-publication Peer Review sites:In the past few years, a number of standalone, independent peer review sites have emerged: PubPeer, Publons, and Faculty of 1000 are among the many. These sites allow you to review both published and under-review papers on their platform, and in the case of Publons, export your reviews to journals for use. These sites also allow you to submit your reviews as Open Peer Reviews, and to create profiles showcasing your peer reviews. Some sites like Publons also issue DOIs for reviews, making them citable research objects.
- Blogging as Open Post-publication Peer Review:In this type of Open Peer Review, academics take to their blogs to share their thoughts on a recently published paper or preprint. These reviews can run the gamut from highly-technical reviews oriented towards other scientists (a good example is this post on Rosie Redfield’s blog) to reviews written for a more general audience (like Mike Eisen’s post on the same study). A major advantage to blogging your Open Peer Reviews is that you don’t have to have permission to do it; you can just fire up your blog and start reviewing. But a downside is that the review isn’t formally sanctioned by the journal, and so can carry less weight than formal reviews.",,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,,,
"Swan, Alma",2006,Overview of scholarly communication,"In, Jacobs, Neil (eds.) Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical and Economic Aspects. , Chandos",http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/262427,Journal articles,Book,Interdisciplinary,"""Some journals have already started experimenting with open peer review, where articles are posted on the Web for open discussion between peer group and author, are modified in the light of this and are then formally peer-reviewed by selected reviewers in the traditional way.""",,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,,,
"Martin, Victoria",2014,Demystifying eResearch: A Primer for Librarians: A Primer for Librarians,ABC-CLIO,,Journal articles,Book,Interdisciplinary,"""Open peer review means that the reviewers' identities are disclosed, included on the peer review reports, and that these reports are (optionally) published alongside the article."" (p.69)",,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"MacAuley, Domhnall",2012,The Role of the Manuscript Assessor,"In How to Write a Paper, edited by George M. Hall, 102'14. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd",,Journal articles,Book,Interdisciplinary,"""Many journals now use a completely open peer review system so that the identity of authors and reviewers are known to each other.""",,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Monsen, Elaine R., and Linda Van Horn",2007,Research: Successful Approaches,American Dietetic Association,,Journal articles,Book,STEM,"""Recently, some journals ... Have gone to what is called ""open peer review"" or ""unblinded review."" In this type of review, reviewers and authors are not blind to one another, and they can discuss questions raised by the review of the manuscript. Some journals provide open posting of the manuscript and reviewer comments on their Web sites and allow community comment.""",,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,,,
"Su rez, Andrea L., Jeffrey D. Bernhard, and Robert P. Dellavalle",2012,Hiding Behind the Curtain: Anonymous versus Open Peer Review,"In Dermatoethics: Contemporary Ethics and Professionalism in Dermatology, edited by Lionel Bercovitch and Clifford Perlis, 221-225. London: Springer,",,Journal articles,Book,STEM,"""open peer review occurs when there is no blinding and the author's and reviewer's names are known to each other.""",,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Benson, Philippa J., and Susan C. Silver",2012,What Editors Want: An Author's Guide to Scientific Journal Publishing,University of Chicago Press,,Journal articles,Book,Interdisciplinary,"""in open peer review neither the authors nor the reviewers are anonymous; instead, everyone's name is visible.""",,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Morris, Sally, Ed Barnas, and Douglas LaFrenier",2013,The Handbook of Journal Publishing,Cambridge University Press,,Journal articles,Book,Interdisciplinary,"""Some journals use ""open peer review,"" and post the reviewers' (signed) commments made during peer review.""",,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,,,
Ediqo,2016,What to Consider When Submitting Your Paper to an Open Peer-Review Journal,"Research Matters - Ediqo Blog, May 18, 2016",https://www.ediqo.com/blog/what-to-consider-when-submitting-your-paper-to-an-open-peer-review-journal/,Journal articles,Blog post,Interdisciplinary,"""Open peer-review journals provide online referee reports to readers alongside a published paper, working towards the goal of increasing transparency in academia and scholarly communications. Some open peer-review models also require referee identities to be revealed to authors or the public, which is usually done once a paper's peer-review process has been completed.... A new type of open peer-review journal are those operating under the post-publication peer-review (PPPR) model. PPPR is also a form of open peer-review, where the referee reports and usually also the names of referees are openly published. PPPR has the advantage that a submitted paper is immediately published online as a kind of preprint before the peer-review process starts.""",,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,,,
"Freire, Danilo",2015,Peering at Open Peer Review,"The Political Methodologist, December 8, 2015",https://thepoliticalmethodologist.com/2015/12/08/peering-at-open-peer-review/,Journal articles,Blog post,Interdisciplinary,"""Open peer review consists in requiring referees to sign their reports and requesting editors to publish the reviews alongside the final manuscripts""",,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Davis, Phil",2010,Weighing the Costs and Benefits of Open Peer-Review,"The Scholarly Kitchen, November 30, 2010",https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2010/11/30/weighing-the-costs-and-benefits-of-open-peer-review/,Journal articles,Blog post,Interdisciplinary,,"""The article, 'Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web,' was published on November 16th in BMJ by Susan van Rooyen and others. Using a randomized controlled trial, reviewers were allocated to either the intervention group (open peer review) or the control group (reviews provided to the author). """,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,,,
Wikipedia,2016,Open peer review,Wikipedia,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_peer_review,Not specified,Other,Interdisciplinary,"Open peer review denotes several, closely related forms of scholarly peer review:
 - open-identity or attributed peer review (as opposed to anonymous peer review);
 - open-access or disclosed peer review, where the peer review contents are publicized;
 - open-invitation or unsolicited peer review, where anyone interested can join and contribute to the peer review process. In this case does not follow that peer-review is a gate-keeping process.",,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,,,
Agricultural Information Management Standards (AIMS),2016,Opening up the review process with open peer review,Agricultural Information Management Standards (AIMS),http://aims.fao.org/activity/blog/opening-review-process-open-peer-review,Not specified,Blog post,Interdisciplinary,"With open peer review referee reports are made publicly available after the peer review process: each published article includes all peer review reports, reviewer names, and author responses ' even for articles that are still under review or revision.",,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,,,
"Suber, Peter",2012,Open Access,MIT Press,http://archive.org/stream/9780262517638OpenAccess/9780262517638_Open_Access#page/n115/mode/2up,Journal articles,Book,Interdisciplinary,"""open review makes submissions OA [open access], before or after some prepublication review, and invites community comments. Some open-review journals will use those comments to decide whether to accept the article for formal publication, and others will already have accepted the article and use the community comments to complement or carry forward the quality evaluation started by the journal. """,,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,,,
"Nordhoff, Sebastian",2015,Axes of Open Review,"Language Science Press Blog, 27. May 2015",http://userblogs.fu-berlin.de/langsci-press/2015/05/27/axes-of-open-review/,Not specified,Blog post,Interdisciplinary,"At Language Science Press, we are experimenting with Open Review. While investigating how we could implement an Open Review system, we discovered that there are actually very different things which could be called Open Review, and even in a small team, opinions differ as to what is the real thing.... We have established the following dimensions: (1) Selection process -anyone can comment. (2) Transparency - the names of the reviewers are revealed, (3) Online - the reviews are created on the Internet",,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,,,
"Amsen, Eva",2014,What is open peer review',"F1000Research Blog, 21 May 2014",http://blog.f1000research.com/2014/05/21/what-is-open-peer-review/,Not specified,Blog post,Interdisciplinary,"Within the life sciences in particular, several journals have opened their peer review process to address some of the issues discussed above. Sometimes this involves publicly naming reviewers and/or editors. Other journals publish some or all reviewer comments.",,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,,,
,,,,,,,,,,110,72,39,25,29,6,2,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,41
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,29
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,2
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,4
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,5
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,6
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,1
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,1
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,1
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,2
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,1
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,6
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,1
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,5
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,9
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,2
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,1
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,1
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,1
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,1
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,1
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,1