LiU Electronic Press
Full-text not available in DiVA
Author:
Sandewall, Erik (Linköping University, Department of Computer and Information Science, CASL - Cognitive Autonomous Systems Laboratory) (Linköping University, The Institute of Technology) (AIICS)
Title:
Maintaining Live Discussion in Two-Stage Open Peer Review
Department:
Linköping University, Department of Computer and Information Science, CASL - Cognitive Autonomous Systems Laboratory
Linköping University, The Institute of Technology
Publication type:
Article, review/survey (Refereed)
Language:
English
Publisher: Frontiers Research Foundation
Status:
Published
In:
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience(ISSN 1662-5188)
Volume:
6
Issue:
9
Year of publ.:
2012
URI:
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-75915
Permanent link:
http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-75915
ISI:
000301131200001
Subject category:
Other Electrical Engineering, Electronic Engineering, Information Engineering
Keywords(en) :
open peer review, community peer review, two-stage peer review, live discussion
Abstract(en) :

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 for feedback to the authors and for the acceptance decision. The review discussion may also in itself have a value for the research community. These goals rely on the existence of a lively review discussion, but several experiments with open-process peer review in recent years have encountered the problem of faltering review discussions. The present article addresses the question of how lively review discussion may be fostered by relating the experience of the journal Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence (ETAI) which was an early experiment with open peer review. Factors influencing the discussion activity are identified. It is observed that it is more difficult to obtain lively discussion when the number of contributed articles increases, which implies difficulties for scaling up the open peer review model. Suggestions are made for how this difficulty may be overcome.

Note:
funding agencies|Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation||
Available from:
2012-03-16
Created:
2012-03-16
Last updated:
2012-03-31
Statistics:
20 hits