Appendix 1: A Taxonomy of Types of Peer Review and Objects Reviewed

Working Draft (1 Saved Version)chevron-down
11 Discussions (#public)
2 Contributors
Appendix 1: A Taxonomy of Types of Peer Review and Objects Reviewed
Read Only You have view permissions to the working draft but cannot edit it.


Director, Amherst College Press


New Discussion on Apr 20
Angela Gibson: I would hope that these forms could be expanded to include “author anonymous” review, where the author is always anonymous to the reviewers and the reviewers are anonymous to the author unless they...
Scholarly objects
Sabina Alam: Maybe I’m splitting hairs, but I find the phrase ‘ the text’ oddly specific. What about the figures and tables associated with the text. These are also often shared, cited, used by readers. Reviewe...
Open forms of review
Sabina Alam: Assuming that your intention here is that articles are published after peer review, there’s no mention here about what factors determine publication (which is discussed in the section above on clos...
Mark Edington: Two important points here — thanks fo them.I think the “factors that determine publication” vary so much from publisher to publisher that no system focused on making peer review more transparent co...
Forms of Review
Nick Michal: Do these defined “forms of review” constitute a helpful framework to identify peer review by?o   Research that open reviews (the idea of them) not statistically different than closed review (van Ro...
Closed/Open forms of review definitions
Nick Michal: Why not use traits of openness, rather than slightly flexible definitions (like those identified in Ross-Hellauer, doi: 10.12688/f1000research.11369.2)? As it stands, for example, a "Crowd review" ...
Mark Edington: Interesting. The difficulty here is that “open” can be an adjective covering many domains — the question of rights (open access) the question of process (open review) or the question of outcomes (c...
Definitions of closed review
Andy Collings: “We propose definitions of four kinds of closed review”Is the idea that a publisher’s peer review process would fit into one of the four definitions? It seems that some review processes would fall ...
Mark Edington: The idea is that this is a proposal — not a dictat. Our trajectory here is to provide a set of suggestions to the convening groups of publishers — whether they are presses or scholarly societies — ...
Comment on Exchanged review
Andy Collings: “Exchanged review. Reviewers are shown each others’ work, under conditions of anonymity, and respond to the work of other reviewers as well as to the work of the author.” What is meant by “conditio...
Mark Edington: This is a review practice used by, for example, Science. The reviewers are shown the work of all reviewers, but they aren’t told the identity of either the author or the other reviewers.