• Journal of the Korean Society for information Management
• /
• v.37 no.4
• /
• pp.131-150
• /
• 2020

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.

• 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 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 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.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Information and Commucation Sciences Conference
• /
• 2022.05a
• /
• pp.18-21
• /
• 2022

최근 정보기술(IT)의 급속한 발전, 코로나19(COVID-19)로 인한 글로벌 팬데믹 현상 등으로 오픈 액세스(OA), 오픈 사이언스(OS), 개방형 동료평가(Open Peer Review, OPR)와 같은 새로운 학술출판 관행이 과학기술분야 학술연구 현장에도 영향을 미치고 있다. OPR 시스템의 도입과 같은 새로운 학술연구출판 관행과 제도는 가치, 동기, 수단, 라이센스, 인센티브 등과 서로 밀접하게 연결되어 있다. OPR의 개념과 실체가 무엇인지는 기존 연구들을 통하여 최근 어느 정도 정립이 됐다. 하지만 OPR을 통해 연구자 개인이나 학회, 출판사 등에 새로운 기회, 도전 과제 및 미래 전망에 대하여 어떠한 영향을 미치는 가에 대한 연구는 중요하지만 제한적이다. 특히 학술연구출판 관행에 대한 다양한 연구가 국내외에서 진행되었지만 국내에서 학술지를 발간하는 학회차원에서 학술연구출판 관행, 특히 OPR에 대한 구체적인 조사분석은 거의 진행되지 않았다. 그렇기에 OPR에 대한 학술출판 생태계의 다양한 참여 주체들의 관점을 자세히 탐구할 필요성이 있다. 이에 본 연구는 과학기술분야 학술지의 학술연구출판 관행과 관련하여 학회 차원에서 새로운 학출연구 출판관행, 특히 OPR에 어떠한 인식을 가지고 있는가에 대한 연구를 진행하고자 한다. 본 연구는 한국과학기술정보연구원(KISTI) 학술연구논문투고심사시스템(ACOMS)를 활용하는 학회를 중심으로 설문조사를 통하여 수집된 OPR 관련 학술연구출판 관행과 제도 변화에 대한 인식을 분석했다.