References
- Bar-Ilan, J., Haustein, S., Milojevic, S., Peters, I., & Wolfram, D. (2018). Peer review, bibliometrics and altmetrics-Do we need them all?. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 55(1), 653-656. http://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.2018.14505501073
- Belluz, J., Plumer, B., & Resnick, B. (2016). The 7 Biggest Problems Facing Science, According to 270 Scientists. Vox. Available: http://www.vox.com/2016/7/14/12016710/science-challeges-research-funding-peer review-proce
- Bohannon, J. (2013). Who's afraid of peer review?. Science, 342(6154), 60-65. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.2013.342.6154.342_60
- Clobridge, A. (2016). Open peer review: The next wave in open knowledge? The open road. Online Searcher, 40(4), 60-62.
- Dobusch, L. & Heimstadt, M. (2019). Predatory publishing in management research: A call for open peer review. Management Learning, 50(5), 607-619. http://doi.org/10.1177/1350507619878820
- Ferguson, C. L. (2020). Open Peer Review. Serials Review, 46(4), 286-291. http://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2020.1850039
- Ford, E. (2013). Defining and characterizing open peer review: A review of the literature. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 44(4), 311-326. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.44-4-001
- FOSTER consortium (2018, November 26). Open Peer Review. Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2640675
- Fresco-Santalla, A. & Hernandez-Perez, T. (2014). Current and evolving models of peer review. The Serials Librarian, 67(4), 373-398. http://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2014.985415
- Hames, I. (2014). The changing face of peer review. Science Editing, 1(1), 9-12. http://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.2014.1.9.
- Ross-Hellauer, T. & Gorogh, E. (2019). Guidelines for open peer review implementation. Research Integrity and Peer Review. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 4(1), 1-12. http://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0063-9
- Ross-Hellauer, T. & Horbach, S. P. J. M. (2022, December 21). 'Conditional Acceptance' (additional experiments required): A scoping review of recent evidence on key aspects of Open Peer Review. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/r6t8p
- Ross-Hellauer, T. (2017). What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research, 6, 588. http://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2
- Ross-Hellauer, T., Deppe, A., & Schmidt, B. (2017). Survey on open peer review Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers. PLOS one, 12(12), e0189311. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189311
- Sage (2014. July 8). SAGE Statement on Journal of Vibration and Control. Sage Publication. Available: https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/press/sage-statement-on-journal-of-vibration-and-control#:~:text=The%20full%20extent%20of%20the%20peer%20review%20ring,%28NPUE%29%20and%20possibly%20other%20authors%20at%20this%20institution.
- Schmidt, B., Ross-Hellauer, T., van Edig, X., & Moylan, E. C. (2018). Ten considerations for open peer review. F1000Research, 7, 969. http://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15334.1
- Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99(4), 178-182. http://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178
- Spier, R. (2002). The history of the peer-review process. Trends in Biotechnology, 20(8), 357-358. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01985-6
- Standard Terminology for Peer Review (2023). ANSI/NISO Z39.106-2023. http://doi.org/10.3789/ansi.niso.z39.106-2023
- Tattersall, A. (2015). For what it's worth-the open peer review landscape. Online Information Review, 39(5), 649-663. http://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-06-2015-0182
- Tennant, J. P., Dugan, J. M., Graziotin, D., Jacques, D. C., Waldner, F., Mietchen, D., Elkhatib, Y., Collister, L. B., Pikas, C. K., Crick, T., Masuzzo, P., Caravaggi, A., Berg, D. R., Niemeyer, K. E., Ross-Hellauer, T., Mannheimer, S., Rigling, L., Katz, D. S., Tzovaras, B. G., Pacheco-Mendoza, J., Fatima, N., Poblet, M., Isaakidis, M., Irawan, D. E., Renaut, S., Madan, C. R., Matthias, L., Kjaer, J. N., O'Donnell, D. P., Neylon, C., Kearns, S., Selvaraju, M., & Colomb, J. (2017). A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review. F1000Research, 6. http://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12037.3
- United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2021). UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. (SC-PCB-SPP/2021/OS/UROS). Available: https://www.unesco.org/en/legal-affairs/recommendation-open-science
- Walker, R. & Rocha da Silva, P. (2015). Emerging trends in peer review-a survey. Frontiers in neuroscience, 9, 169. http://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2015.00169
- Waltman, L., Kaltenbrunner, W., Pinfield, S., & Woods, H. B. (2023). How to improve scientific peer review Four schools of thought. Learned Publishing, 36(3), 334-347. http://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1544
- Wang, P. & Tahamtan, I. (2017). The state-of-the-art of open peer review: Early adopters. proceedings of the association for information science and technology, 54(1), 819-820. http://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.2017.14505401170
- Ware, M. (2011). Peer review: Recent experience and future directions. New Review of Information Networking, 16(1), 23-53. http://doi.org/10.1080/13614576.2011.566812
- Wolfram, D., Wang, P., Hembree, A., & Park, H. (2020). Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science. Scientometrics, 125(2), 1033-1051. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03488-4