Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons^™

Stories Of Open: Opening Peer Review Through Narrative Inquiry (Acrl Publications In Librarianship No. 76), Emily Ford

Library Faculty Publications and Presentations

Peer review processes in scholarly publishing are often hidden behind layers of opacity, leaving authors—and even reviewers—with many questions about the process. Open peer review is one way to improve the practice. It can shorten the time between manuscript submission and publication, hold reviewers accountable for their work, make more apparent the hidden labor of reviewing and editing, allow for collaborative discourse between authors and reviewers, and more. Even with these benefits, open peer review is not widely accepted or understood. Few academic librarians have experienced it, and each implementation can be different; anything open is highly nuanced and contextual. …

Reimagining Peer Review, Emily Ford

Library Faculty Publications and Presentations

As you may recall, the 2020 Critical Library and Pedagogy Symposium instituted an open peer review process—not masking submitters’ names and other identifying information—to review proposed sessions. This decision came after the committee noted a lack of diversity in accepted sessions using a closed review process. Using open peer review allowed the committee to balance accepted proposals and offer a diverse range of views and experiences among presenters. This hour-long facilitated discussion will examine bias and power structures inherent in peer review. It will be an interactive session that allows participants to critically examine their views and previous experiences with …

Moving Peer Review Transparency From Process To Praxis, Emily Ford

Library Faculty Publications and Presentations

Scholarly publications often work to provide transparency of peer-review processes, posting policy information to their websites as suggested by the Committee on Publication Ethics’ (COPE) Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Publishing. Yet this falls short in providing peer-review transparency. Using examples from an interview-based qualitative study, this article argues that scholarly publications should move from peer-review process transparency to a praxis of transparency in peer review. Praxis infers that values inform practices. Scholarly publications should therefore use clear communication practices in all matters of business, and bolster transparency efforts, delineating rights and responsibilities of all players in …

Considering Developmental Peer Review, Wendi Arant Kaspar, Sarah Hare, Cara Evanson, Emily Ford

Library Faculty Publications and Presentations

This editorial is a collaborative discussion of College & Research Libraries’ open peer review experiment, representing the unique perspectives and voices of those playing roles.

Demystifying Peer Review: Using Open Peer Review In Information Literacy Instruction, Emily Ford

Library Faculty Publications and Presentations

Peer review pervades the academic library. In the information literacy (IL) classroom we teach students how to find peer-reviewed articles and engage students in understanding the peer-review process. Undoubtedly, peer review is part of the scholarly conversation, and falls under the "Scholarship as a Conversation" frame of ACRL's Framework for Information Literacy. Yet, despite our best pedagogical efforts, the peer-review process can remain a mystery for students. How can we demystify it for them when it is hidden in a black box? Open peer review (OPR)--a form of peer review that rejects the black box and brings the process into …

Scholarship As An Open Conversation: Using Open Peer Review In Library Instruction, Emily Ford

Library Faculty Publications and Presentations

This article explores the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy’s frame, Scholarship as a Conversation. This frame asserts that information literate students have the disposition, skills, and knowledge to recognize and participate in disciplinary scholarly conversations. By investigating the peer-review process as part of scholarly conversations, this article provides a brief literature review on peer review in information literacy instruction, and argues that by using open peer review (OPR) models for teaching, library workers can allow students to gain a deeper understanding of scholarly conversations. OPR affords students the ability to begin dismantling the systemic oppression that blinded peer review and …

Advancing An Open Ethos With Open Peer Review, Emily Ford

Library Faculty Publications and Presentations

Guest Editorial

Open source. Open access. Open data. Open notebooks. Open government. Open educational resources. Open access workflows. To be open is to have a disposition favoring transparent and collaborative efforts.

Open is everywhere. Since the late 90’s when developers in Silicon Valley adopted the term ‘open source’ (suggested by Christine Peterson), the open movement has grown by leaps and bounds. The developers, who met after the web browser company Netscape made its source code open, articulated that ‘open’ “…illustrated a valuable way to engage with potential software users and developers, and convince them to create and improve source code …

The Intersection Of Information And Science Literacy, Kristin M. Klucevsek

Communications in Information Literacy

To achieve higher science literacy, both students and the public require discipline-specific information literacy in the sciences. Scientific information literacy is a core component of the scientific process. In addition to teaching how to find and evaluate resources, scientific information literacy should include teaching the process of scholarship as a conversation and publication in the sciences. Faculty and librarians can be challenged in their efforts to teach students because of limited access to published research. Stronger scientific information literacy and more access to scholarly research could improve science literacy as a whole.

Keeping Up With… Open Peer Review, Emily Ford

Library Faculty Publications and Presentations

Open Peer Review is a current and developing practice in scholarly publishing that librarians need to continue to explore and discuss. To that end ACRL should continue to support experiments with and conversations about OPR in its publications. As academic librarians, we observe and engage with new practices in scholarly communication, and OPR should be no exception. Whether academic librarianship embraces OPR as a model of peer review for its publications, or we simply observe experiments in other disciplines, we can position ourselves to better support our patrons and our publishing ventures by examining OPR.

Opening Review In Lis Journals: A Status Report, Emily Ford

Library Faculty Publications and Presentations

Introduction: Peer-review practices in scholarly publishing are changing. Digital publishing mechanisms allow for open peer review, a peer review process that discloses author and reviewer identities to one another. This model of peer review is increasingly implemented in scholarly publishing. In science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) disciplines, open peer review is implemented in journal publishing processes, and, in the humanities and social sciences, it is often coupled with new scholarship practices, such as the digital humanities. This article reports findings from an exploratory study on peer-review and publishing practices in Library and Information Science (LIS), focusing on LIS’s relationships …

Open Peer Review At Four Stem Journals: An Observational Overview [Version 2; Referees: 2 Approved, 2 Approved With Reservations], Emily Ford

Library Faculty Publications and Presentations

Open peer review, peer review where authors' and reviewers' identities are disclosed to one another, is a growing trend in scholarly publishing. Through observation of four journals in STEM disciplines, PLOS One, Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics, PeerJ, and F1000Research, an observational overview is conducted. The overview relies on defined characteristics of open peer review. Results show that despite differing open peer review implementations, each journal retains editorial involvement in scholarly publishing. Further, the analysis shows that only one of these implementations is fully transparent in its peer review and decision making process. Finally, the overview contends …

Defining And Characterizing Open Peer Review: A Review Of The Literature, Emily Ford

Library Faculty Publications and Presentations

Changes in scholarly publishing have resulted in a move toward openness. To this end, new, open models of peer review are emerging. While the scholarly literature has examined and discussed open peer review, no established definition of it exists, nor are there uniform implementations of open peer review processes. This article examines the literature discussing open peer review, identifies common open peer review definitions, and describes eight common characteristics of open peer review: signed review, disclosed review, editor-mediated review, transparent review, crowdsourced review, prepublication review, synchronous review, and post-publication review. This article further discusses benefits and challenges to the scholarly …

Open Ethos Publishing At Code4lib Journal And In The Library With The Lead Pipe, Emily Ford

Library Faculty Publications and Presentations

The library world is deeply entrenched in the open ethos, yet there are few examples of library publications that engage in open editorial and peer review processes. In this article we discuss the challenges and opportunities posed by the open editorial processes used at In the Library with the Lead Pipe and Code4Lib Journal. To end, we discuss the need to grow open review and editorial processes in library and information science publications.