{"id":3102,"date":"2018-08-29T08:45:03","date_gmt":"2018-08-29T11:45:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.scielo.org\/en\/?p=3102"},"modified":"2019-01-16T15:25:25","modified_gmt":"2019-01-16T17:25:25","slug":"what-do-spanish-researchers-think-about-open-peer-review","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.scielo.org\/en\/2018\/08\/29\/what-do-spanish-researchers-think-about-open-peer-review\/","title":{"rendered":"What do Spanish researchers think about Open Peer Review?"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Ernesto Spinak<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Image: opensource.com<\/a>.<\/i><\/p><\/div>\n

The state agency Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cient\u00edficas<\/em> (CSIC) is the largest public institution dedicated to research in Spain and the third in Europe. Since 2010, it has been conducting surveys among Spanish scientists on the perceptions and participation in open access, on the preservation of research data, and this year, it conducted a survey on the degree of acceptance of open peer review (OPR). This activity is correlated to the OpenAire2020 project funded by the European Commission.<\/p>\n

In February 2018, the CSIC’s Digital Technical Workshop launched this survey to analyze the habits, preferences and opinions of CSIC researchers when it comes to conducting peer review and being peer reviewed. The interest of this survey lies in the growing international debate on open access that affects, among many things, the assessment models and scientific impact indicators. This survey aimed to carry out an initial analysis of researchers’ attitudes and experiences regarding open reviews, a practice that has been increasing slowly but steadily in recent years, driven by Open Science movements. The results, which were very revealing, were published in a 25-page report1<\/sup>, available in open access.<\/p>\n

The questionnaire was answered by 158 CSIC researchers, and considered 15 types of questions, among which we highlight:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Age range of the interviewees, to measure the stage of their career and their productivity;<\/li>\n
  2. Research areas \u2013 Human and Social Sciences; Biology\/Biomedicine; Agrarian Sciences; Physics, Chemistry, etc.;<\/li>\n
  3. Activity carried out regarding scholarly communication: editor, author, reviewer, etc.;<\/li>\n
  4. Degree of satisfaction with the current system;<\/li>\n
  5. Degree of acceptance of open evaluations.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The interviewees positively valued the changes that would bring about the reform of the current peer review system, although there were also some opinions that were cautious due to possible conflicts of interest, possible reprisals, and the risks arising from objectivity and\/or critical spirit of reviews.<\/p>\n

    Following is a summary of the results:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    60,0%<\/td>\nClaim to be beneficial to publish the reviews as they provide additional information and improve the quality of the articles<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    50,0%<\/td>\nAgree with the openness of the reviewers’ identities, as it helps reducing conflicts of interest<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    54,0%<\/td>\nAre satisfied with the dominant peer review system<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    88,6%<\/td>\nBelieve that peer review activity should be considered in the evaluation of scientific productivity<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

     <\/p>\n

    Although the “double-blind” evaluation method is the preferred option, there is also room for other options:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
    83,5%<\/td>\nWould not avoid publishing in a journal that adopts open peer review<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    74,1%<\/td>\nAre in favor of extending peer review to all types of research results<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

     <\/p>\n

    The responses suggest that there is widespread support for the current peer review systems, but voices in favor of more open systems are significant and difficult to ignore.<\/p>\n

    The problem to overcome is that scientists are aware of the international debate on peer reviews, but there is a relative lack of knowledge about specific initiatives that encourage open reviews and that value the peer review activity. Only a minority were familiar with Publons or initiatives that promote open review models, open access repositories, etc.<\/p>\n

    Note<\/h3>\n

    1. BERNAL, I., ROM\u00c1N-MOLINA, J and OFICINA T\u00c9CNICA DE DIGITAL.CSIC. Informe de la encuesta sobre evaluaci\u00f3n por pares y el m\u00f3dulo “Open Peer Review” de DIGITAL.CSIC [online]. DIGITAL.CSIC. 2018 [viewed in 29 August 2018]. Available from: http:\/\/digital.csic.es\/bitstream\/10261\/167425\/3\/encuesta_DC_peer_review_oprm_2018.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

    References<\/h3>\n

    BERNAL, I., ROM\u00c1N-MOLINA, J. and OFICINA T\u00c9CNICA DE DIGITAL.CSIC. Informe de la encuesta sobre evaluaci\u00f3n por pares y el m\u00f3dulo “Open Peer Review” de DIGITAL.CSIC [online]. 2018 [viewed in 29 August 2018]. Available from: http:\/\/digital.csic.es\/bitstream\/10261\/167425\/3\/encuesta_DC_peer_review_oprm_2018.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

    OFICINA T\u00c9CNICA DE DIGITAL.CSIC and BERNAL, I. Percepciones y participaci\u00f3n en el acceso abierto en el CSIC: Informe sobre la Encuesta de Digital.CSIC para investigadores [online]. DIGITAL.CSIC. 2010 [viewed in 29 August 2018]. Available from: http:\/\/digital.csic.es\/handle\/10261\/28543<\/a><\/p>\n

    ROM\u00c1N-MOLINA, J., BERNAL, I. and OFICINA T\u00c9CNICA DE DIGITAL.CSIC. Pr\u00e1cticas en la gesti\u00f3n, difusi\u00f3n y preservaci\u00f3n de datos de investigaci\u00f3n en el CSIC [online]. DIGITAL.CSIC. 2014 [viewed in 29 August 2018]. Available from: http:\/\/digital.csic.es\/handle\/10261\/92404<\/a><\/p>\n

    External links<\/h3>\n

    CSIC <http:\/\/www.csic.es\/<\/a>><\/p>\n

    OpenAIRE <https:\/\/www.openaire.eu\/<\/a>><\/p>\n

    Publons <https:\/\/publons.com\/home\/<\/a>><\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    About Ernesto Spinak\"\"<\/a><\/h3>\n

    Collaborator on the SciELO program, a Systems Engineer with a Bachelor\u2019s degree in Library Science, and a Diploma of Advanced Studies from the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (Barcelona, Spain) and a Master\u2019s in \u201cSociedad de la Informaci\u00f3n\u201d (Information Society) from the same university. Currently has a consulting company that provides services in information projects to 14 government institutions and universities in Uruguay.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    Translated from the original in Spanish<\/a> by Lilian Nassi-Cal\u00f2.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    In February 2018, the Spanish Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cient\u00edficas<\/i> launched a survey to know the habits, preferences and opinions of its researchers when performing an evaluation and being subjected to open peer review, with the aim of contributing to the international debate on science assessment and possible ways of improvement. Fifty-four percent of respondents are satisfied with the dominant peer review system and fifty percent agree to open the reviewers’ identity as it helps reduce conflicts of interest. …<\/span> Read More →<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":3104,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[69,53,7,61],"class_list":["post-3102","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-analysis","tag-open-peer-review","tag-peer-review","tag-scholarly-communication","tag-the-future-of-peer-review"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t