• Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice
• /
• v.12 no.1
• /
• pp.87-101
• /
• 2024

As the academic publishing environment evolves rapidly and the open science paradigm emerges, the demand for efficient and transparent peer review is growing. This study outlines efforts to actively introduce advanced concepts in scholarly communication into the submission and review system. AccessON Peer Review Management System Plus (ACOMS+), developed and operated by the Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, is an online submission and peer review system that aims for open science. This study provides an overview of ACOMS+ and presents its four main features: open peer review, open access publishing and self-archiving, online quantitative/qualitative evaluation, and peer reviewer invitation. The directions for further developing ACOMS+ to fully support open science are also discussed. ACOMS+ is the first system in Korea to introduce the open peer review process and is distinguished as a system that supports open access publishing and digital transformation of academic journals. Furthermore, ACOMS+ is expected to contribute to the advancement of the academic publishing environment through the increasing shift toward open access publishing, transparent peer review, and open science.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.22 no.10
• /
• pp.59-73
• /
• 2022

Open peer review intends to help review a manuscript in a transparent and accountable manner, opening up the identity of a reviewer and authors in a scholarly journal. Although some research about open peer review, for example, authors' understanding of open peer review, exists, research about editors' perspectives of a scholarly journal in Korean domestic science and technology fields has not been found. Editors' views may include whether an academic journal plans to adopt open peer review, when they might adopt it, or what the possible benefits, challenges, and issues in adopting open peer review would be. This paper presents a survey scheme, data, and analysis of Korean editors' perspectives on open peer review. Specifically, we designed the online survey questionnaire, collected the survey data from journal editors, and analyzed the survey results to explore editors' understanding of open peer review. We then compared our research with previous work, such as our Focused Group Interview and other similar domestic and foreign analysis. This study result is expected to help make an open peer review policy for public institutes to provide essential services for scholarly journals, including a scholarly peer review system. Academic society may also get some insights in adopting the open peer review method in the peer-review process.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society for Information Management Conference
• /
• 2014.08a
• /
• pp.73-78
• /
• 2014

피어리뷰(Peer Review)는 17세기 학술지가 만들어진 이래 오늘날까지 가장 널리 사용되는 논문의 질적인 수준과 학술지 게재 여부를 판단하는 전통적인 평가도구이다. 그러나 피어리뷰의 과정에서 발생되는 공정성 저해와 학술출판 분야에서 오픈 액세스 (OA, Open Access) 저널이 계속적으로 증가하는 디지털 미디어 시대에서 소수의 전문가가 검증하는 피어리뷰 시스템에 관한 불만들이 제기되면서 현 피어리뷰 시스템의 새로운 대안으로 오픈 피어리뷰(Open Peer Review)가 제시되기도 하였다. 이에 본 연구에서는 피어리뷰의 이론적 배경을 살펴보고 이를 토대로 새로운 대안으로 떠오르고 있는 오픈피어리뷰의 평가도구로써의 활용가능성에 대하여 살펴보고자 한다.

• Journal of the Korean Society for information Management
• /
• v.41 no.1
• /
• pp.537-560
• /
• 2024

In an academic ecosystem evolving into open science, open peer review is gaining attention as a way to enhance transparency and openness in scholarly communication. This study examines the adoption of open peer review components in 118 open access journals that have implemented open peer review, and their characteristics by publisher type, country/continent, language, and discipline. Open peer review has been implemented in a variety of ways, including making review reports or pre-prints publicly available or disclosing the identities of authors and reviewers to each other. We also found differences in the components adopted across disciplines. It appears that commercial publishers, which account for a large proportion of publisher types, have generally adopted it, and it is mainly published in English in European countries. By discipline, we find more open peer review in the medical and natural sciences, which traditionally aim for open scholarly communication and fewer journals in the multidisciplinary and humanities. This provides insights into the adoption of open peer review by journals, as well as a better understanding of the characteristics of the academic community in terms of their adoption of open peer review.

• Journal of the Korea Institute of Information and Communication Engineering
• /
• v.23 no.11
• /
• pp.1462-1470
• /
• 2019

The researcher writes the result of the research in the form of paper. The submitted papers gets careful peer review by the reviewers and used for the development of academic studies after it gets published. There has been numerous debate about the review system, as the review process determines whether the results will be known to academia. In this paper, we investigate the problems in the present review system and propose a open peer review system based on blockchain. The proposed system has an open peer review structure unlike the existing one and ensures fair and in-depth evaluation through transparency. The system also provides a solution to the privacy and capacity problems that may arise from the use of blockchain. Lastly, we implement the proposed peer review system and show the results.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science
• /
• v.57 no.2
• /
• pp.79-96
• /
• 2023

This study analyzed the open peer review results for 585 papers in the field of social sciences in F1000Research, a representative OPR(Open Peer Review) platform, and checked the relationship between the number of cited-by, altmetrics and review score. In addition, by verifying whether the review score shows a moderating effect between the relationship between the utilization of the paper and the cited-by, it was confirmed whether the paper evaluated as high quality in the open review platform can promote the number of cited-by. As a result of the analysis, first, there was no significant difference in the number of cited-by between the approved and conditionally approved paper groups, but the converted review score and the number of cited-by showed a weak positive correlation (r = 0.40 - 0.60). Second, the review score showed a weak correlation with the altmetrics, and it was analyzed that review result could weakly predict the number of cited-by and social impact. Finally, it was verified that the review score performed a significant positive moderating effect (B=1.69, P < 0.01) in making the use of the paper lead to citation. As a result of the conditional effect test, it was verified that it showed the greatest effect(B=11.32, 95% CI [10.57, 12.08]) in the group of papers rated as the highest quality. Therefore, it was analyzed that the open review scores can help researchers select high quality papers and induce citations.

• Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice
• /
• v.3 no.2
• /
• pp.16-30
• /
• 2015

The term megajournal is used to describe publication platforms, like PLOS ONE, that claim to incorporate peer review processes and web technologies that allow fast review and publishing. These platforms also publish without the constraints of periodic issues and instead publish daily. We conducted a yearlong bibliometric profile of a sample of articles published in the first several months after the launch of PeerJ, a peer reviewed, open access publishing platform in the medical and biological sciences. The profile included a study of author characteristics, peer review characteristics, usage and social metrics, and a citation analysis. We found that about 43% of the articles are collaborated on by authors from different nations. Publication delay averaged 68 days, based on the median. Almost 74% of the articles were coauthored by males and females, but less than a third were first authored by females. Usage and social metrics tended to be high after publication but declined sharply over the course of a year. Citations increased as social metrics declined. Google Scholar and Scopus citation counts were highly correlated after the first year of data collection (Spearman rho = 0.86). An analysis of reference lists indicated that articles tended to include unique journal titles. The purpose of the study is not to generalize to other journals but to chart the origin of PeerJ in order to compare to future analyses of other megajournals, which may play increasingly substantial roles in science communication.

• Journal of the Korean BIBLIA Society for library and Information Science
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.5-24
• /
• 2022

As a new academic publication model is attempted to improve the transparency, efficiency, and speed of scientific knowledge production and distribution, the open peer review platform for verification and openness of peer review history is also activated. Publons is a global platform for tracking, validating, disclosing, and recognizing the peer-reviewed histories of more than 3 million researchers worldwide. This study analyzed the review activities of 579 researchers from domestic universities who are actively reviewing international journals through Publons. As a result of the analysis, first, researchers from domestic universities who actively review international academic journals were found to be in the fields of medicine and electrical and electronics, and in most fields, assistant professors or higher with high WOS indexed research papers are participating. Second, there was a long-tail phenomenon in which a small number of reviewers with extremely high number of review papers existed in all academic fields, and there was no significant difference in the number of review papers and review report length depending on the nationality, academic status, and age of the reviewers. Lastly, although there was a weak correlation between the amount of papers reviewed by reviewers and the number of published papers, it was found that researchers with an extremely large number of reviews do not necessarily produce as many research papers.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.36 no.6
• /
• pp.969-978
• /
• 2016

The purpose of this study is to figure out gifted elementary science students' improvement in performing open inquiry after peer review. In this study, gifted fifth-grade students performed open inquiry and review of each other as peers after the inquiry. Students' inquiries were evaluated and the influences of the feedback from the peer reviews were analyzed in relation to the inquiry performances. As a result of this study, three key points were discovered: First, the evaluation score increased with frequent feedback or long discussions. On the other hand, with less feedback, the evaluation score didn't rise. Second, there were three types of improvement in inquiry related to peer review: No. 1 was improvement after feedback given by themselves. No. 2 was reflection of feedback given to other groups. As a last type, No. 3 was that the students learned from other groups' presentation without any feedback and improved their inquiry. Third, there were five kinds of giving feedback; (1) feedback understanding the inquiry correctly, (2) insufficiency of peer's inquiry without deep thought. (3) on the usefulness of the inquiry, (4) on the scientific and logic validity through critical thinking, and (5) how to develop the inquiry. In these kinds of feedback, the fourth kind of feedback (4) occurred most frequently but the fifth (5) occurred rarely. It means peer review helps students develop their critical thinking ability and teachers should encourage students to give peers feedback of the fifth kind.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• pp.295-316
• /
• 2011

If the medical staff privileges, which mean the eligibility to practice at open hospitals, are excluded in the United States, antitrust claims based on the violation of the Sherman Act have been raised a lot. The proliferation of these lawsuits in the United States, which are characterized as antitrust lawsuits, can be understandable situation. The reason is because doctors who don't belong to specific hospitals are seriously damaged, if the medical staff privileges are excluded and doctors cannot use facilities of open hospitals. In order to decide to allow the privileges of certain doctors, hospitals have to rely on peer review to maintain high quality of medical services, and it is not easy to find alternative of peer review in the professional areas like healthcare. However, there are possibilities that members of the peer review can abuse power to unfairly exclude privileges of potential competitors. In this sense, it is asserted in the U.S. antitrust lawsuits that the restraint of medical staff privilege can be the illegal restraint of trade in violation of section 1 of Sherman Act and can be monopolization or an attempt to monopoly by hospitals in violation of section 2 of Sherman Act. As Korea adopted open hospital system quite recently, there is still no case related with the exclusion of medical staff privileges. However, medical staff privilege system of Korea is not different from that of the United States in principle. Thus, the U.S. jurisprudence on the exclusion of medical staff privileges can be referred in the interpretation of "practice that interferes with or restricts the activities or contents of the business" based on Article 19.1.9 of Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Law of Korea.