Open up: a survey on open and non-anonymized peer reviewing

Lonni Besançon · Niklas Rönnberg · Jonas Löwgren · Jonathan Tennant · Matthew D. Cooper

33 citations0/0 files storedResearch Integrity and Peer Review

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Publishing and Scholarly Communication Academic Writing and Publishing Academic Publishing and Open Access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Our aim is to highlight the benefits and limitations of open and non-anonymized peer review. Our argument is based on the literature and on responses to a survey on the reviewing process of alt.chi, a more or less open review track within the so-called Computer Human Interaction (CHI) conference, the predominant conference in the field of human-computer interaction. This track currently is the only implementation of an open peer review process in the field of human-computer interaction while, with the recent increase in interest in open scientific practices, open review is now being considered and used in other fields. METHODS: We ran an online survey with 30 responses from alt.chi authors and reviewers, collecting quantitative data using multiple-choice questions and Likert scales. Qualitative data were collected using open questions. RESULTS: Our main quantitative result is that respondents are more positive to open and non-anonymous reviewing for alt.chi than for other parts of the CHI conference. The qualitative data specifically highlight the benefits of open and transparent academic discussions. The data and scripts are available on https://osf.io/vuw7h/, and the figures and follow-up work on http://tiny.cc/OpenReviews. CONCLUSION: While the benefits are quite clear and the system is generally well-liked by alt.chi participants, they remain reluctant to see it used in other venues. This concurs with a number of recent studies that suggest a divergence between support for a more open review process and its practical implementation.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 33 citations exist upstream.

References

2004Improving the Quality of Web Surveys: The Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES)1946On the Theory of Scales of Measurement 1977Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system 2012Bias in peer review 2016Local Standards for Sample Size at CHI 2007Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors 2017What is open peer review? A systematic review 2002The history of the peer-review process

Cited by

2021Attitudes and practices of open data, preprinting, and peer-review—A cross sectional study on Croatian scientists 2024Additional experiments required: A scoping review of recent evidence on key aspects of Open Peer Review 2021The influence of opening up peer review on the citations of journal articles 2020The benefits to climate science of including early-career scientists as reviewers 2021Which peer reviewers voluntarily reveal their identity to authors? Insights into the consequences of open-identities peer review

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.