Ross-Hellauer Tony
Göttingen State and University Library, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, 37073, Germany.
F1000Res. 2017 Apr 27;6:588. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.11369.2. eCollection 2017.
: "Open peer review" (OPR), despite being a major pillar of Open Science, has neither a standardized definition nor an agreed schema of its features and implementations. The literature reflects this, with numerous overlapping and contradictory definitions. While for some the term refers to peer review where the identities of both author and reviewer are disclosed to each other, for others it signifies systems where reviewer reports are published alongside articles. For others it signifies both of these conditions, and for yet others it describes systems where not only "invited experts" are able to comment. For still others, it includes a variety of combinations of these and other novel methods. : Recognising the absence of a consensus view on what open peer review is, this article undertakes a systematic review of definitions of "open peer review" or "open review", to create a corpus of 122 definitions. These definitions are systematically analysed to build a coherent typology of the various innovations in peer review signified by the term, and hence provide the precise technical definition currently lacking. : This quantifiable data yields rich information on the range and extent of differing definitions over time and by broad subject area. Quantifying definitions in this way allows us to accurately portray exactly how ambiguously the phrase "open peer review" has been used thus far, for the literature offers 22 distinct configurations of seven traits, effectively meaning that there are 22 different definitions of OPR in the literature reviewed. : I propose a pragmatic definition of open peer review as an umbrella term for a number of overlapping ways that peer review models can be adapted in line with the aims of Open Science, including making reviewer and author identities open, publishing review reports and enabling greater participation in the peer review process.
“开放同行评议”（OPR）尽管是开放科学的一大支柱，但既没有标准化的定义，也没有关于其特征和实施方式的统一模式。文献也反映了这一点，存在众多相互重叠且矛盾的定义。对一些人来说，该术语指的是作者和审稿人的身份相互公开的同行评议；对另一些人而言，它表示审稿报告与文章一同发表的系统。对其他人来说，它意味着这两种情况；还有一些人则描述的是不仅“受邀专家”能够发表评论的系统。对另外一些人来说，它包括这些以及其他新颖方法的各种组合。认识到对于开放同行评议是什么缺乏共识观点，本文对“开放同行评议”或“开放评议”的定义进行了系统综述，构建了一个包含122个定义的语料库。对这些定义进行系统分析，以构建该术语所表示的同行评议中各种创新的连贯类型学，从而提供目前所缺乏的精确技术定义。这些可量化的数据产生了关于不同定义随时间以及按广泛主题领域的范围和程度的丰富信息。以这种方式对定义进行量化使我们能够准确描绘出“开放同行评议”这个短语迄今为止使用得多么模糊，因为文献提供了七种特征的22种不同组合，这实际上意味着在所审查的文献中有22种不同的开放同行评议定义。我提出一个实用的开放同行评议定义，作为一个涵盖同行评议模式可以根据开放科学的目标进行调整的多种重叠方式的统称，包括公开审稿人和作者的身份、发表审稿报告以及让更多人参与同行评议过程。
