Abstract
INTRODUCTION Peer-review practices in scholarly publishing are changing. Digital publishing mechanisms allow for open peer review, a peer review process that discloses author and reviewer identities to one another. This model of peer review is increasingly implemented in scholarly publishing. In science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) disciplines, open peer review is implemented in journal publishing processes, and, in the humanities and social sciences, it is often coupled with new scholarship practices, such as the digital humanities. This article reports findings from an exploratory study on peer-review and publishing practices in Library and Information Science (LIS), focusing on LIS’s relationships with open peer review. METHODS Editors of LIS journals were surveyed regarding journal peer review and publishing practices. RESULTS This article reports the general “pulse” of attitudes and conversations regarding open peer review and discusses its challenges in LIS. Results show an ideological split between traditionally-published journals and open access and association-affiliated journals. Open access and association-affiliated journal editors are more likely to consider investigating open peer review. DISCUSSION The LIS community of journal editors, authors, reviewers, and readers need to discuss open peer review as well as experiment with it. Experiments with open peer review in scholarly LIS publishing will inform our praxis as librarians.
Highlights
Peer-review practices in scholarly publishing are changing
It is clear that the Library and Information Science (LIS) community needs more conversation about and engagement with open peer review (OPR)
The apparent ideological split in LIS publications between association-affiliated and/or open access (OA) journals and traditionally-published journals shows that part of our publishing community is more amenable to openness
Summary
Peer-review practices in scholarly publishing are changing. Digital publishing mechanisms allow for open peer review, a peer review process that discloses author and reviewer identities to one another. Digital publication allows for enhancement of articles with supplemental files, social media widgets, and online discussion platforms This potential to enhance and transform the dissemination of scholarly work is both exciting and overwhelming. Current publishing technologies—such as CrossRef ’s CrossMark® and plugins from companies such as Altmetric—streamline publication processes, offer authority and version control, and track a work’s impact using alternative measures such as social media mentions and citations in blog posts, policy documents, media coverage, and more. This technological flexibility enables open access (OA) publication and creates the space to experiment with alternative review processes
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
