Considering campaigns to post journal reviews on preprints. (n.d.). ASAPbio. Retrieved April 29, 2022, from https://asapbio.org/considering-campaigns-to-post-journal-reviews-on-preprints

Replicating scientific results is tough—But essential. (2021). Nature, 600(7889), 359–360. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-03736-4

AIMOS. (2021, November 30). How can we connect #metascience to established #science fields? Find out at this afternoon’s session at #aimos2021 Remco Heesen @fallonmody Felipe Romeo will discuss. Come join us. #OpenScience #OpenData #reproducibility https://t.co/dEW2MkGNpx [Tweet]. @aimos_inc. https://twitter.com/aimos_inc/status/1465485732206850054

Yesilada, M., Holford, D. L., Wulf, M., Hahn, U., Lewandowsky, S., Herzog, S., Radosevic, M., Stuchlý, E., Taylor, K., Ye, S., Saxena, G., & El-Halaby, G. (2021). Who, What, Where: Tracking the development of COVID-19 related PsyArXiv preprints. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/evmgs

Volle Transparenz wäre m.E. erst dann gegeben, wenn auch abgelehente Einreichungen mitsamt der der Gutachten, die zur Ablehnung geführt haben ins Netz gestellt werden. Mir scheint, um Meinungs- oder Zitationskartelle zu verhindern (oder zumindest offensichtlich werden zu lassen), wäre das sogar wichtiger als die Namen der Gutachter anzugeben.

Conference Details. (n.d.). AIMOS. Retrieved 5 March 2021, from https://aimos.community/2020-details

Dr Elaine Toomey on Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved 24 February 2021, from https://twitter.com/ElaineToomey1/status/1357343820417933316

Outbreak Science Rapid PREreview • Dashboard. (n.d.). Retrieved September 11, 2020, from https://outbreaksci.prereview.org/dashboard?q=COVID-19&q=Coronavirus&q=SARS-CoV-2

Rapid Reviews COVID-19. (n.d.). Rapid Reviews COVID-19. Retrieved September 11, 2020, from https://rapidreviewscovid19.mitpress.mit.edu/

About | OpenReview. (n.d.). Retrieved May 30, 2020, from https://openreview.net/about

Schalkwyk, M. C. I. van, Hird, T. R., Maani, N., Petticrew, M., & Gilmore, A. B. (2020). The perils of preprints. BMJ, 370. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3111. https://t.co/qNPLYCeT99?amp=1

Besançon, L., Peiffer-Smadja, N., Segalas, C., Jiang, H., Masuzzo, P., Smout, C., Deforet, M., & Leyrat, C. (2020). Open Science Saves Lives: Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic. BioRxiv, 2020.08.13.249847. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.13.249847

‘OSF: A Project Management Service Built for Research - ROpenSci - Open Tools for Open Science’. Accessed 10 August 2020. https://ropensci.org/blog/2020/08/04/osf/.

Taraborelli, D., Taraborelli, D., & Taraborelli, D. (2020, August 5). How the COVID-19 crisis has prompted a revolution in scientific publishing. Fast Company. https://www.fastcompany.com/90537072/how-the-covid-19-crisis-has-prompted-a-revolution-in-scientific-publishing

Knöchelmann, M. (2020, February 25) Open Humanities: Why Open Science in the Humanities is not Enough. Impact of Social Sciences. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/02/25/open-humanities-why-open-science-in-the-humanities-is-not-enough/

Heathers, J. (2020, May 21). Preprints Aren’t The Problem—WE Are The Problem. Medium. https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/preprints-arent-the-problem-we-are-the-problem-75d29a317625

Ikeda, K., Yamada, Y., & Takahashi, K. (2020). Post-Publication Peer Review for Real [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/sp3j5

Chambers, C. (2020 March 16). CALLING ALL SCIENTISTS: Rapid evaluation of COVID19-related Registered Reports at Royal Society Open Science

10 Updates*

I would include "open data" and "data sharing" as keywords too.

Of special interest is that a reviewer openly discussed in blog his general thoughts about the state of the art in the field based on what he had been looking at in the paper. This blog came out just after he completed his 1st round review, and before an editorial decision was made.

http://ivory.idyll.org/blog/thoughts-on-assemblathon-2.html

This spawned additional blogs that broadened the discussion among the community-- again looking toward the future.<br> See: https://www.homolog.us/blogs/genome/2013/02/23/titus-browns-thoughts-on-the-assemblathon-2-paper/

And

https://flxlexblog.wordpress.com/2013/02/26/on-assembly-uncertainty-inspired-by-the-assemblathon2-debate/

Further the authors, now in the process of revising their manuscript, joined in on twitter, reaching out to the community at large for suggestions on revisions, and additional thoughts. Their paper had been posted in arxiv- allowing for this type of commenting and author/reader interaction See: https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5406

The Assemblathon.org site collected and presented all the information on the discussion surrounding this article. https://assemblathon.org/page/2

A blog by the editors followed all this describing this ultra-open peer review, highlighting how these forms of discussions during the peer review process ended up being a very forward-looking discussion about the state of based on what the reviewers were seeing in this paper, and the directions the community should now focus on. This broader open discussion and its very positive nature could only happen in an open, transparent, review process. See: https://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2013/07/23/ultra-open-peer-review/

Arno Klein and Satrajit S. Gosh published this research idea in 2016 and opened it to review. In fact, you could review their abstract directly in RIO, but for the MOOC activity "open peer review" we want you to read and annotate their proposal using this Hypothes.is layer. You can add annotations by simply highlighting a section that you want to comment on or add a page note and say in a few sentences what you think of their ideas. You can also reply to comments that your peers have already made. Please sign up to Hypothes.is and join the conversation!

open peer review model

Keeping Up with...Open Peer Review

Conduct prepeer review during the manuscript development on a web platform. That is what is happening in Therapoid.net.

Crowdsourcing review? Prepeer review as precursor to preprint server.

Perhaps these could routinely become page notes?

Interesting workflow and within his rights.

Interesting...

We believe that openness and transparency are core values of science. For a long time, technological obstacles existed preventing transparency from being the norm. With the advent of the internet, however, these obstacles have largely disappeared. The promise of open research can finally be realized, but this will require a cultural change in science. The power to create that change lies in the peer-review process.

We suggest that beginning January 1, 2017, reviewers make open practices a pre-condition for more comprehensive review. This is already in reviewers’ power; to drive the change, all that is needed is for reviewers to collectively agree that the time for change has come.