Technology and peer review: the open and participatory dimension

Brabham, D. C. (2012). The myth of amateur crowds: A critical discourse analysis of crowdsourcing coverage. Information, Communication & Society, 15(3), 394-410.10.1080/1369118X.2011.641991Search in Google Scholar

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, 4-6.10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.008Search in Google Scholar

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.10.1109/HICSS.2015.549Search in Google Scholar

Fedeli L. (2012). Social media e didattica. Opportunità, criticità e prospettive. Lecce: Pensa Multimedia.Search in Google Scholar

Howe, J. (2006). The rise of crowdsourcing. Wired, 14(6). Retrieved from http://goo.gl/vO7E7B.Search in Google Scholar

Jefferson, T., Alderson, P. Wager, E., & Davidoff, F. (2002). Effects of editorial peer review: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287, 2784-2786.10.1001/jama.287.21.2784Search in Google Scholar

Lane, D. (2008). Double-blind review: Easy to guess in specialist fields. Nature, 452, 28.10.1038/452028cSearch in Google Scholar

Lupton, D. (2014). “Feeling Better Connected”: Academics’ Use of Social Media University of Canberra. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/OFBFaE.Search in Google Scholar

Peters, D., & Ceci, S. (1982). Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of submitted articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5, 187-255.10.1017/S0140525X00011183Search in Google Scholar

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.2012.00033.10.3389/fncom.2012.00033Search in Google Scholar

Publons, (2013). Publons Launches DOI Support For Peer Reviews. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/b9iElb.Search in Google Scholar

Research Councils UK (2006). Report of the Research Councils UK Efficiency and Effectiveness of Peer Review Project. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/dlRb1n.Search in Google Scholar

Research Information Network. (2010). Peer review. A guide for researchers. Retrieved from www.rin.ac.uk/peerreview-guide.Search in Google Scholar

Research Information Network (2015). Scholarly Communication and Peer Review. The Current Landscape and Future Trends. Research Information Network. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/YMhzKb.Search in Google Scholar

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.Search in Google Scholar

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.Search in Google Scholar

The British Academy. (2007). Executive Summary and Recommendations. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/SKkDEz.Search in Google Scholar

The Royal Society. (1995). Peer Review - An assessment of recent developments. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/RH27TU.Search in Google Scholar

Ware, M., & Monkman, M. (2008). Peer review in scholarly journals: Perspective of the scholarly community - an international study. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/ThJCXp.Search in Google Scholar

Weller, M. (2011). The Digital Scholar. How technology is transforming scholarly practice. London: Bloomsbury Academic.10.5040/9781849666275Search in Google Scholar

Wennerås, C., & Wold, A. (1997). Sexism and nepotism in peer-review. Nature, 387, 341-3. 10.1038/387341a0Search in Google Scholar