User Tools

Site Tools


open_peer-review

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

open_peer-review [09-Aug-11 19:24]
sanjay created
open_peer-review [09-Oct-11 21:55] (current)
sanjay
Line 1: Line 1:
-==== Open Peer-Review (Journal) ====+===== Open Peer-Review (Journal) ====
 +[[http://​www.darkmatter101.org/​site/​|darkmatter Journal]] shifted to accepting submissions subject to external peer review in 2011.((Our practice up until then was of in-house editorial review.)) While we remain committed to publishing '​non-peer review'​ work (e.g. Commons and Reviews etc.), the decision to adopt external peer review has been extensively discussed amongst the editorial team. 
  
-[[http://www.darkmatter101.org/site/|darkmatter Journal]] during 2011 shifted to accepting submissions subject to external ​peer review.((Our practice up until then was of in-house editorial review.)) While we continue to publish non-peer review work (e.g. Commons and Reviews etc.), the decision to adopt peer review ​was extensively discussed amongst the editorial team. +However, the journal aims to eschew traditional (closed) peer-review practices, because essentially they are flawed for failing to promote academic discussion and transparency of knowledge production.((For an excellent critique and discussion of alternative practices of '​open'​ peer review see [[http://hackthestate.org/2009/​12/​16/​open-process-academic-publishing-v1-2/|Open-process academic publishing]] by Toni Prug. For an example, see the peer review ​process ​of [[http://​cspp.oekonux.org/about/peer-review|Critical Studies in Peer Production]] journal))
  
-The journal eschews traditional ​(closed) peer-review practices, because it essentially they are flawed for promoting academic discussion and transparency of knowledge production.((For an excellent critique and discussion of alternative practices of '​open' ​peer review ​see [[http://​hackthestate.org/​2009/​07/​27/​open-process-academic-publishing/​|Open-process academic publishing]] by Toni Prug. For an examplesee the peer review process of [[http://​cspp.oekonux.org/​about/​peer-review|Critical Studies in Peer Production]] journal))+Our (semi-)open peer review practices ​involves the following:((We believe ​peer review ​is a dynamic ​process, ​and reserve ​the right to develop our open practices over time.)) 
  
-Our 'open' ​peer review practices involves ​the following: ​+  * Both Authors and Reviewers have the option to forgo anonymity 
 +  * External Reviewers' ​feedback will be published alongside the final version of the article, (and the Author has the option to make available their original submission) 
 +  * Author'​s have the option to respond to Reviewers' ​feedback, and Reviewers may wish to discuss further - if available, these comments (and relevant Editorial feedback) can also be published alongside ​the final version ​
  
-[add text] +The diagram below illustrates the workflow of the Journal'​s ​peer review process. ​To summarize:
- +
-We believe ​peer review ​is a dynamic ​process, and reserve the right to develop our open practices over time +
  
 +  * Stage A: After Author submission (Au#1), the initial Editorial decision (Ed#1) takes place: either Accept for Review or Reject ​
 +  * Stage B: Submission are read by up to two external Reviewers (Rf), who provide feedback and indicate a recommendation:​ [1] Accept; [2] Minor Revisions (Accept); [3] Major Revisions; [4] Reject.  ​
 +  * Stage C: The Editors taking account of Reviewer feedback make a decision (Ed#2) based on one of the four choices: [1] the article passes straight through to production for publication;​ [2] Author is required to make minor revisions; [3] Author is required to make major revisions; [4] the submission is rejected. For [1] - [3] the author has the option to respond to Reviewer feedback, and particular in the situation of [3], the author is encouraged to respond to feedback, (and Reviewer'​s have the option of replying). ​
 +  * Stage D: A revised version of article is submitted (Au#2), the Editors check that this is satisfactory (Ed#3), and the article can be passed through to the publication state.  ​
 + 
 +{{:​alternativepeerreviewv5.png}}
  
open_peer-review.1312914291.txt.gz · Last modified: 09-Aug-11 19:24 by sanjay