Peer review is a consolidated procedure in the academic context and its process affects various range of research outputs from project funding applications to manuscript publication. Peer review can be developed through modalities that imply a different level of transparency in the relationship between anonymity of the author and the reviewer/s.
With the development of social media and the growth of scientific online communities, new forms of peer review have acquired a recognised value, matching the need of the academy to rely on selected reviewers and the need of the prospective author to get a richer feedback from a variety of scholars through different means, open comments and/or discussion fora, and always accessible online.
Hybrid forms of review, which can integrate a formal peer review with an open comment opportunity on the Web, proved successful for both improving the author’s draft and enhancing its chances of publication and for the reviewers who can use this valuable activity to enrich their reputation by collecting and showing their reviews as research output. In this framework, quality, transparency and reputation acquire new nuances in their connection with the process of research validation.
Brabham, D. C. (2012). The myth of amateur crowds: A critical discourse analysis of crowdsourcing coverage. Information, Communication & Society, 15(3), 394-410.
Budden, A. E., Tregenza, T., Aarssen, L. W., Koricheva, J., & Leimu, R. (2008). Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23, 4-6.
Buettner, R. (2015). A systematic literature review of crowdsourcing research from a human resource management perspective. Proceedings of the 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - (HICSS-48), (4609-4618). Kauai, Hawaii.
Fedeli L. (2012). Social media e didattica. Opportunità, criticità e prospettive. Lecce: Pensa Multimedia.
Howe, J. (2006). The rise of crowdsourcing. Wired, 14(6). Retrieved from http://goo.gl/vO7E7B.
Jefferson, T., Alderson, P. Wager, E., & Davidoff, F. (2002). Effects of editorial peer review: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287, 2784-2786.
Lane, D. (2008). Double-blind review: Easy to guess in specialist fields. Nature, 452, 28.
Lupton, D. (2014). “Feeling Better Connected”: Academics’ Use of Social Media University of Canberra. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/OFBFaE.
Peters, D., & Ceci, S. (1982). Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of submitted articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5, 187-255.
Pöschl, U. (2012). Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6(July), 33. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2012.00033.
Publons, (2013). Publons Launches DOI Support For Peer Reviews. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/b9iElb.
Research Councils UK (2006). Report of the Research Councils UK Efficiency and Effectiveness of Peer Review Project. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/dlRb1n.
Research Information Network. (2010). Peer review. A guide for researchers. Retrieved from www.rin.ac.uk/peerreview-guide.
Research Information Network (2015). Scholarly Communication and Peer Review. The Current Landscape and Future Trends. Research Information Network. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/YMhzKb.
Shum, S. B., & Sumner, T. (2001). JIME: An interactive journal for interactive media. First Monday, 6 (2). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/836/745.
Sumner, T., Shum S. B. (1996). Open Peer Review & Argumentation: Loosening the Paper Chains on Journals. Ariadne. Retrieved from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue5/jime.
The British Academy. (2007). Executive Summary and Recommendations. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/SKkDEz.
The Royal Society. (1995). Peer Review - An assessment of recent developments. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/RH27TU.
Ware, M., & Monkman, M. (2008). Peer review in scholarly journals: Perspective of the scholarly community - an international study. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/ThJCXp.
Weller, M. (2011). The Digital Scholar. How technology is transforming scholarly practice. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Wennerås, C., & Wold, A. (1997). Sexism and nepotism in peer-review. Nature, 387, 341-3.