Library and Information Science 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.

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 …

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 …

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

Library Faculty Publications and Presentations

This data includes a .csv file with data from survey responses. The following abstract describes the research study. The purpose of this study was to gain an overview of open peer review practices and attitudes of scholarly journal editors in the field of Library and Information Science. The survey posed questions regarding current publishing and review practices, and inquired about changes journals may have made to publication and review processes. Survey participation was solicited from 253 journal editors of LIS journals listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals and Journal Citation Reports. 42 complete responses and 11 incomplete responses …

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 …