中文    English

Journal of Library and Information Science in Agriculture ›› 2024, Vol. 36 ›› Issue (5): 14-22.doi: 10.13998/j.cnki.issn1002-1248.24-0499

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Development Trends of International Open Peer Review Platforms and Recommendations for China

ZHANG Zhixiong1,2,3, WANG Yuju1,3, ZHAO Yang1,3   

  1. 1. National Science Library, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190;
    2. Department of Information Resources Management, School of Economics and Management, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190;
    3. Key Laboratory of New Publishing and Knowledge Services for Scholarly Journals, Beijing 100190
  • Received:2024-04-05 Published:2024-09-24

Abstract: [Purpose/Significance] This study systematically analyzes the basic models and development trends of international open peer review platforms, with the aim of exploring the insights these platforms provide for academic communication and research governance in China. The goal is to accelerate the establishment and development of an open peer review system in China, fostering a more open, collaborative, and efficient academic exchange environment that promotes the free flow of knowledge and the widespread dissemination of scientific ideas. [Method/Process] The article first reviews and analyzes several international open peer review platforms and communities that are led by the scientific community and operate independently of scientific journal publishing, such as Peer Community In (PCI), Sciety, PREreview, and Review Commons. On this basis, it outlines the basic operational models of international open peer review platforms and identifies a number of common features among the three basic models. Then, through an in-depth analysis of the development dynamics of these platforms and communities, the study summarizes their development trends from different perspectives, including research institutions, scientists, scientific community, and international academic communication models. Based on this analysis, and taking into account international experience and the specific characteristics of China's research environment, the article proposes recommendations for building an open peer review system in China. [Results/Conclusions] The study identifies three basic operational models of international open peer review platforms: platforms established for the purpose of open publishing, platforms developed primarily as preprint servers, and platforms built independently for open peer review. It also summarizes the key trends in the development of these platforms: strong support from major research institutions, active participation of leading scientists, the formation and impact of large-scale platforms, recognition of open peer-reviewed research by the scientific community, alignment with the international open access (OA) movement, and the reshaping of international academic communication models.International open peer review platforms and communities are emerging as important forces in driving research innovation and enhancing research quality. In light of China's current situation, the article offers six recommendations to accelerate the development of open peer review platforms and communities: (1) fully recognizing the significance of open peer review platforms for Chinese science; (2) updating scientific publishing concepts to create a supportive environment for the development of open peer review platforms; (3) implementing policies to support the construction of open peer review platforms and communities in China; (4) promoting exemplary cases and innovative practices in the development of open peer review platforms and communities; (5) building robust national open peer review infrastructure to support the development of open peer review communities; and (6) engaging in brand building to create internationalized open peer review platforms and communities. These efforts aim to secure a new position for China in global scholarly communication.

Key words: open peer review, open peer review platforms, open peer review models, development trends, scholarly communication

CLC Number: 

  • G237.5
[1] Peer community in(PCI)[EB/OL]. [2024-04-01].https://peercommunityin.org/.
[2] Sciety[EB/OL]. [2024-04-01].https://sciety.org/.
[3] Open preprint reviews[EB/OL]. [2024-04-01].https://prereview.org/.
[4] Review commons[EB/OL]. [2024-04-01].https://www.reviewcommons.org/about/.
[5] ROSS-HELLAUER T.What is open peer review? A systematic review[J]. F1000Research, 2017, 6: 588.
[6] F1000 research[EB/OL]. [2024-04-01].https://f1000research.com/about.
[7] F1000. F1000 publishing venues[EB/OL].[2024-04-01]. https://www.f1000.com/resources-for-researchers/where-to-publish-your-
research/f1000-publishing-venues/.
[8] Research Square.In review[EB/OL]. [2024-04-01].https://www.researchsquare.com/researchers/in-review.
[9] SSRN. First look[EB/OL].[2024-04-01]. https://www.elsevier.com/products/ssrn-preprint-services/first-look.
[10] Research Square.Participating journals & platforms[EB/OL]. [2024-04-01].https://www.researchsquare.com/journals.
[11] POLKA J, PUEBLA I, PATTINSON D, et al. PReF: Describing key preprint review features[J/OL]. OSF preprints, 2022. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/8zj9w.
[12] Peerage of science[EB/OL]. [2024-04-01].https://www.peerageofscience.org/.
[13] Gates open research[EB/OL].[2024-04-01].https://gatesopenresearch.org/.
[14] Wellcome open research[EB/OL].[2024-04-01].https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/.
[15] PreLights[EB/OL]. [2024-04-01].https://prelights.biologists.com/.
[16] MNI open research[EB/OL]. [2024-04-01].https://mniopenresearch.org/.
[17] HRB open research[EB/OL].[2024-04-01].https://hrbopenresearch.org/.
[18] Science open reviewed[EB/OL].[2024-04-01].https://science-open-reviewed.com/webapp/.
[19] Open research Europe[EB/OL].[2024-04-01].https://open-research-europe.ec.europa.eu/.
[20] EISEN M B, AKHMANOVA A, BEHRENS T E, et al.Implementing a "publish, then review" model of publishing[J]. Elife, 2020, 9: e64910.
[21] Wiley. 关于eLife的新型出版模式,科研人员怎么看?[EB/OL]. [2024- 04-01]. https://mvc.wiley.cn/research-news/231024-9/.
[22] BRAINARD J.Can peer reviewing preprints catch on?[J]. Science, 2022, 378(6626): 1264-1265.
[23] PreLight[EB/OL]. [2024-04-01].https://prelights.biologists.com/.
[24] Plan S statement on peer reviewed publications[EB/OL]. [2024-04-01].https://www.coalition-s.org/statement-on-peer-reviewed-publications/.
[25] ASAPbio. What do researchers think about scholarly publishing?Five key takeaways from a new survey by cOAlition S[EB/OL]. [2024-04-01]. https://asapbio.org/what-do-researchers-think-about-scholarly-publishing-five-key-takeaways-from-a-new-survey-by-coalition-s.
[26] Peer community journal[EB/OL]. [2024-04-01].https://peercommunityjournal.org/page/indexation/.
[27] ABBOTT A.Strife at eLife: Inside a journal's quest to upend science publishing[J]. Nature, 2023, 615: 780-781.
[1] DING Jingda, YUAN Yiqing. An Exploration of the Scholarly Integrity Mechanism Supported by Blockchain Technology in Scholarly Communication [J]. Journal of Library and Information Science in Agriculture, 2021, 33(2): 54-62.
[2] ZHENG Yufei, WANG Zheng. Characteristics and Trends of Overseas Library Open Access Activities During the Epidemic Period [J]. Journal of Library and Information Science in Agriculture, 2020, 32(12): 20-28.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!