Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText.
Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>
A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences
Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

suck abstract from ncbi


10.12688/f1000research.11369.2

http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2
suck pdf from google scholar
C5437951.2!5437951!28580134
unlimited free pdf from europmc28580134    free
PDF from PMC    free
html from PMC    free

suck abstract from ncbi

pmid28580134      F1000Res 2017 ; 6 (ä): ä
Nephropedia Template TP

gab.com Text

Twit Text FOAVip

Twit Text #

English Wikipedia


  • What is open peer review? A systematic review #MMPMID28580134
  • Ross-Hellauer T
  • F1000Res 2017[]; 6 (ä): ä PMID28580134show ga
  • Background: ?Open peer review? (OPR), despite being a major pillar of Open Science, has neither a standardized definition nor an agreed schema of its features and implementations. The literature reflects this, with numerous overlapping and contradictory definitions. While for some the term refers to peer review where the identities of both author and reviewer are disclosed to each other, for others it signifies systems where reviewer reports are published alongside articles. For others it signifies both of these conditions, and for yet others it describes systems where not only ?invited experts? are able to comment. For still others, it includes a variety of combinations of these and other novel methods.Methods: Recognising the absence of a consensus view on what open peer review is, this article undertakes a systematic review of definitions of ?open peer review? or ?open review?, to create a corpus of 122 definitions. These definitions are systematically analysed to build a coherent typology of the various innovations in peer review signified by the term, and hence provide the precise technical definition currently lacking.Results: This quantifiable data yields rich information on the range and extent of differing definitions over time and by broad subject area. Quantifying definitions in this way allows us to accurately portray exactly how ambiguously the phrase ?open peer review? has been used thus far, for the literature offers 22 distinct configurations of seven traits, effectively meaning that there are 22 different definitions of OPR in the literature reviewed.Conclusions: I propose a pragmatic definition of open peer review as an umbrella term for a number of overlapping ways that peer review models can be adapted in line with the aims of Open Science, including making reviewer and author identities open, publishing review reports and enabling greater participation in the peer review process.
  • ä


  • DeepDyve
  • Pubget Overpricing
  • suck abstract from ncbi

    Linkout box