Talk:Open peer review

Untitled
I edited the main article to mention a new journal with open review. Later I noticed that being associated to this journal I am discoraged to do such inclusions in wikipedia. However, I do believe this is a pertinent information for this page. Someone independent may consider editing this. My proposed text was: "In 2009, a group of Physicists launched Papers in Physics . This journal provides both, traditional and open review. In open review, the author knows the identity of the reviewer and the report is published as a separated article in the form of a Commentary. The Editor may suggest the author to withdraw if comments are negative. However, the author may choose to publish the article and a Reply in response to the reviewer's Commentary."

Luis.pugnaloni (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Somebody has placed a merge template on this stub, which directs here. Obviously, this belongs in peer review. As far as I can see, everything that is in this stub is already present there, so a simple redirect should suffice. --Crusio (talk) 07:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's have the discussion at Talk:Peer review. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Peer review is a huge topic, and open peer review is a topic of burgeoning interest to the scholarly communications community. Open Peer Review should be its own page with its own talk page. There should be links back & forth to the Peer Review page. Those interested in open peer review would be drowned out if it was just a section on the peer review article. -- Joe Easterly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.115.165 (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. The target section doesn't even include a definition of the concept. Andres (talk) 08:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

OPR is a broad concept
I've reverted this because it equated OPR with attributed or non-anonymous peer review, while the cited sources indicated OPR can be many other forms of scholarly peer review. fgnievinski (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Article is a mess
This article is a mess. I tried to edit it but it was reverted. The lead needs to be turned into prose. The first sentence should define the topic, but somehow this is left to the "Definition" section, where there is an actual usable definition. Maybe someone can take my edits and try again. It is not worth my time if my edits are ignored completely. Volunteer1234 (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes this article is a mess, but the subject itself is a mess, with no standard definition for open peer review. The role of Wikipedia is to describe that mess, not to sort it out. I agree that the article could be improved a lot, but turning the lead into prose does not help if it obscures the distinction between the various definitions of open peer review. In my opinion, the most important immediate improvement would be to clarify which definition is used in each statement. Sylvain Ribault (talk) 08:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with this. Every now and then there are Wikipedia articles where someone tries to improve the prose, with the unfortunate result of obscuring the fact that the state of sourced knowledge on that particular part of what we know about the world is messy. Boud (talk) 13:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

MDPI
I removed MDPI, given the lack of consensus on MDPI's peer review satisfying scientific norms - see MDPI for plenty of sources. There's no point listing MDPI as implementing open peer review if it doesn't clearly qualify as implementing academic peer review as accepted by the communities of the fields in which MDPI publishes.

The referencing in this article is currently not very strong, but it seems to me that listing a publisher of academically disputed quality would need an especially good source. Boud (talk) 01:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I would agree that we do not need to list publishers of low quality and/or reputation. The case of MDPI is not clear to me: the behaviour in MDPI is rather anecdotal, and apparently not worse than that of some mainstream established publishers, see Elsevier. By the way, the listed journal Sci is published by MDPI. Sylvain Ribault (talk) 07:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I removed Sci based on the tentative consensus here: it had neither a source to support the open peer review claim nor a Wikipedia article - it's just an entry on the MDPI list of journals. It's true that Elsevier is a mainstream scientific publisher that's severely criticised. I don't think we currently have any Elsevier journals listed as journals with open peer review, so we can't currently be accused of having a double standard. On other hand, the following question may turn up later: are we reliably documenting knowledge about the "production" of knowledge if we include an open-peer-review journal of a formerly well-reputed scientific research publisher whose reputation has dropped (Elsevier) but exclude a journal of a new publisher whose reputation has not been established and is controversial (MDPI)? I guess the answer will come based on the best (preferably peer-reviewed, even if closed peer-reviewed) sources that we can find. This article is currently somewhat weak in sourcing, which is rather ironical (I'm not blaming anyone, just commenting). Boud (talk) 09:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)