Difference between revisions of "Open Reviews"

From PKP Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "= PKP 2011 Hackfest - Open Reviews Project = == What is this? == Open Reviews is an alternative to the standard double-blind peer review process. In a double-blind process the ...")
 
Line 3: Line 3:
 
== What is this? ==
 
== What is this? ==
  
Open Reviews is an alternative to the standard double-blind peer review process. In a double-blind process the editor typically chooses reviewers, and reviewers do not know who authored the article. In an open review, reviewers can typically self-select and comment anonymously on any article they choose.
+
Open Reviews is an alternative to the standard double-blind peer review process. In a double-blind process the editor typically chooses reviewers, and reviewers do not know who authored the article, and the authors do not know the names of the reviewers. In an open review, reviewers can typically self-select and comment anonymously on any article they choose.
  
 
Open Reviews have long been a topic on our [http://pkp.sfu.ca/wiki/index.php/PKP_Frequently_Asked_Questions#Does_OJS_support_open_peer_review.3F FAQ].
 
Open Reviews have long been a topic on our [http://pkp.sfu.ca/wiki/index.php/PKP_Frequently_Asked_Questions#Does_OJS_support_open_peer_review.3F FAQ].

Revision as of 07:32, 9 November 2010

PKP 2011 Hackfest - Open Reviews Project

What is this?

Open Reviews is an alternative to the standard double-blind peer review process. In a double-blind process the editor typically chooses reviewers, and reviewers do not know who authored the article, and the authors do not know the names of the reviewers. In an open review, reviewers can typically self-select and comment anonymously on any article they choose.

Open Reviews have long been a topic on our FAQ.

What might be done in this project?

There are many different models for open review processes, and all are experimental. For example:

The goal of this project would be to choose a model and implement it somehow within OJS. This could be something as simple as reviewing existing features -- i.e. anonymous commenting on published articles -- and coming up with a detailed guide on how to perform an open review by combining those features as they currently exist, or as complicated as rewriting the double-blind review system to incorporate a new review model.

See also the related Liquid Publishing project.