Preprint Article Version 1 Preserved in Portico This version is not peer-reviewed

Open Up: A Survey on Open and Non-anonymized Peer Reviewing





Version 1 : Received: 5 May 2019 / Approved: 8 May 2019 / Online: 8 May 2019 (11:46:36 CEST) Version 2 : Received: 15 August 2019 / Approved: 16 August 2019 / Online: 16 August 2019 (05:27:55 CEST)

How to cite: Besançon, L.; Rönnberg, N.; Löwgren, J.; Tennant, J.P.; Cooper, M. Open Up: A Survey on Open and Non-anonymized Peer Reviewing. Preprints 2019, 2019050098 (doi: 10.20944/preprints201905.0098.v1). Besançon, L.; Rönnberg, N.; Löwgren, J.; Tennant, J.P.; Cooper, M. Open Up: A Survey on Open and Non-anonymized Peer Reviewing. Preprints 2019, 2019050098 (doi: 10.20944/preprints201905.0098.v1). Copy

Cite as: Besançon, L.; Rönnberg, N.; Löwgren, J.; Tennant, J.P.; Cooper, M. Open Up: A Survey on Open and Non-anonymized Peer Reviewing. Preprints 2019, 2019050098 (doi: 10.20944/preprints201905.0098.v1). Besançon, L.; Rönnberg, N.; Löwgren, J.; Tennant, J.P.; Cooper, M. Open Up: A Survey on Open and Non-anonymized Peer Reviewing. Preprints 2019, 2019050098 (doi: 10.20944/preprints201905.0098.v1). Copy CANCEL COPY CITATION DETAILS

Abstract

We present a discussion and analysis regarding the benefits and limitations of open and non-anonymized peer review based on literature results and responses to a survey on the reviewing process of alt.chi, a more or less open-review track within the CHI conference, the predominant conference in the field of human-computer interaction (HCI). This track currently is the only implementation of an open-peer-review process in the field of HCI while, with the recent increase in interest in open science practices, open review is now being considered and used in other fields. We collected 30 responses from alt.chi authors and reviewers and found that, while the benefits are quite clear and the system is generally well liked by alt.chi participants, they are reluctant to see it used in other venues. This concurs with a number of recent studies that suggest a divergence between support for a more open review process and its practical implementation. The data and scripts are available on https://osf.io/vuw7h/, and the figures and follow-up work on http://tiny.cc/OpenReviews.

Subject Areas

Open Review; Open Science; Zero-Blind Review; Peer Review; Methodology

Copyright: This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Comments (0)

We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our diversity statement.