A Study on Open Peer Review Perception of Korean Authors in a Mega OA Journal (메가 OA 학술지 국내 저자의 오픈 피어 리뷰 인식에 관한 연구)

Ji-Young Kim (김지영); Hyun Soo Kim (김현수); SHIM, WONSIK (심원식)

doi:10.3743/KOSIM.2020.37.4.131

A Study on Open Peer Review Perception of Korean Authors in a Mega OA Journal

Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management
Abbr : JKOSIM
2020, 37(4), pp.131~150
DOI : 10.3743/KOSIM.2020.37.4.131
Publisher : 한국정보관리학회
Research Area : Interdisciplinary Studies > Library and Information Science
Received : November 23, 2020
Accepted : December 12, 2020
Published : December 30, 2020

Ji-Young Kim ¹, Hyun Soo Kim ², SHIM, WONSIK ³

¹한국과학기술정보연구원
²성균관대학교 일반대학원 문헌정보학과
³성균관대학교 문헌정보학과

Accredited

ABSTRACT

This study was conducted to ascertain a better understanding of researchers’ perception of open peer review (OPR), which is being attempted to improve the problems of traditional peer review methods in recent journal publications. A survey was conducted on the Korean authors of a mega open access (OA) journals and the results were analyzed. The subjects of the survey were selected as Korean corresponding authors published on PLOS, an international OA journal and mega journal. The survey was conducted as an online questionnaire and a total of 238 responses were collected; the analysis was based on 202 valid responses. Data were analyzed by performing frequency analysis and average comparison between groups for the collected questionnaire results. As a result of analyzing whether there is a difference in perception of OPR depending on the age, research experience, and OPR experience of the researcher, researchers under the age of 44, researchers with research experience of 9 years or less, and researchers with OPR participation experience had differences in some OPR perceptions. Results show that researchers under the age of 44 want to change the current peer review approach, but they are not yet actively accepting OPR. As a result of analyzing the reasons why the researcher disagrees with OPR, they raised questions about lack of objectivity, increased burden of reviewers, emotions and relationships, and responded that the right to be forgotten was also necessary.

KEYWORDS

open peer review, peer review, scholarly communication, scholarly journal publishing, perception survey

Citation status

* References for papers published after 2023 are currently being built.

[confproc] 김하나 / 2014 / 새로운 피어리뷰(Peer Review)로써의 오픈피어리뷰(Open Peer Review)에대한 고찰 / 제21회 한국정보관리학회 학술대회 논문집 : 73~78

[journal] 심원식 / 2020 / A Quantitative Analysis on PLoS ONE Articles Published by Authors Affiliated with Korean Institutions / 정보관리학회지 / 한국정보관리학회 37(2) : 47~69

[journal] 유사라 / 2010 / Case-oriented Analysis of Ethical Problems in Academic Publishing & Review Process / 倫理硏究 / 한국윤리학회 1(76) : 331~364

[journal] Martin Almquist / 2017 / A prospective study on an innovative online forum for peer reviewing of surgical science / PLOS ONE / Public Library of Science (PLoS) 12(6) : e0179031~

[journal] Dale J. Benos / 2007 / The ups and downs of peer review / Advances in Physiology Education / American Physiological Society 31(2) : 145~152

[journal] John Bohannon / 2013 / Who's Afraid of Peer Review? / Science / American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) 342(6154) : 60~65

[journal] Burley, R. / 2017 / Peer review in the 21st / Information Services & Use 37(3) : 259~261

[journal] Csiszar, A. / 2016 / Peer review : Troubled from the start / Nature 532(7599) : 306~308

[web] / 2020 / DOAJ / http://doaj.org

[web] Hengel, E. / 2017 / Publishing while female: Are women held to higher standards? Evidence from peer review / https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.17548

[web] Johnson, R. / 2018 / The STM report. An overview of scientific and scholarly publishing / https://www.stm-assoc.org/2018_10_04_STM_Report_2018.pdf

[journal] Justice, A. C. / 1998 / Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? : A randomized controlled trial / Jama 280(3) : 240~242

[journal] Mahoney, M. J. / 1977 / Publication prejudices : An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system / Cognitive Therapy and Research 1(2) : 161~175

[web] OASPA / Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing / The Hague: Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association / https://oaspa.org/principles-of-transparency-and-best-practice-in-scholarly-publishing-3/

[web] Polka, J. K. / 2018 / Publish peer reviews / https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06032-w/

[confproc] Rath, M. / 2017 / Open peer review in the era of open science: A pilot study of researchers' perceptions / 2017 ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL) / IEEE : 1~2

[journal] Rennie, D. / 1998 / Freedom and responsibility in medical publication: Setting the balance right / JAMA 280(3) : 300~302

[report] Ross-Hellauer T. / 2018 / Application framework and transformation scenarios for open peer review / OpenUP

[journal] Tony Ross-Hellauer / 2017 / What is open peer review? A systematic review / F1000Research / F1000 Research Ltd 6 : 588~

[journal] Ross-Hellauer, T. / 2019 / Guidelines for open peer review implementation / Research Integrity and Peer Review 4(1) : 4~

[journal] Tony Ross-Hellauer / 2017 / Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers / PLOS ONE / Public Library of Science (PLoS) 12(12) : e0189311~

[web] Schmidt, B. / 2018 / WOR: Wellcome Open Research—Exploration of year one data / https://github.com/gitti1/WOR

[journal] Birgit Schmidt / 2018 / Ten considerations for open peer review / F1000Research / F1000 Research Ltd 7 : 969~

[journal] R. Smith / 1999 / Opening up BMJ peer review / BMJ / BMJ 318(7175) : 4~5

[journal] Tattersall, A. / 2015 / For what it’s worth – the open peer review landscape / Online Information Review / Emerald 39(5) : 649~663

[journal] Jonathan P. Tennant / 2017 / A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review / F1000Research / F1000 Research Ltd 6 : 1151~

[journal] L. Tite / 2007 / Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey / Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health / BMJ 61(1) : 9~12

[journal] S. van Rooyen / 2010 / Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial / BMJ / BMJ 341(nov16 2) : c5729~c5729

[journal] S. van Rooyen / 1999 / Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial / BMJ / BMJ 318(7175) : 23~27

[journal] Peiling Wang / 2017 / The state‐of‐the‐art of open peer review: Early adopters / Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology / Wiley 54(1) : 819~820

[journal] Weller, A. C. / 1995 / Editorial peer review : Research, current practices, and implications for librarians / Serials Review 21(1) : 53~65

[journal] Jelte M. Wicherts / 2016 / Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals / PLOS ONE / Public Library of Science (PLoS) 11(1) : e0147913~

[journal] Jelte M. Wicherts / 2012 / Letting the daylight in: Reviewing the reviewers and other ways to maximize transparency in science / Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience / Frontiers Media SA 6

KJCKorea
Journal Central

Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management 2023 KCI Impact Factor : 1.31

A Study on Open Peer Review Perception of Korean Authors in a Mega OA Journal

ABSTRACT

KEYWORDS

Citation status

* References for papers published after 2023 are currently being built.

Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management 2023 KCI Impact Factor : 1.31

A Study on Open Peer Review Perception of Korean Authors in a Mega OA Journal

ABSTRACT

KEYWORDS

Statistics

Tools

Issue List

Citation status

KCI Citation Counts (8)

REFERENCES (33) * References for papers published after 2023 are currently being built.

Search PDF

Citation

* References for papers published after 2023 are currently being built.