Scanning current practices of scholarly peer review
¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 This experiment should properly be called a “partially open peer review process” rather than an “open” peer review process, since it includes two phases of traditional editorial oversight. For a longer discussion of the nuances of different peer review models, read Kathleen Fitzpatrick’s history of academic peer review, sketch of its future, and analysis of an array of online experiments.
¶ 2
Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0
As a context for the conversations we hope will take place here, see the thumbnail sketches below of the review and gatekeeping processes in an array of scholarly resources online. If you know of other useful models for discussion, please comment and I’ll add them to the table.
[...] experimental peer review fits nicely into broader efforts to change the peer review process (see this chart of other peer review approaches prepared by MediaCommons) and scholarly publishing in general. Groups like MediaCommons see [...]