Open peer review: from an experiment to a model
The result are already online on HAL, in an article which narrates the development of the experimentation of an open peer review and open commentary protocols: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01283582. This experiment concerns propositions of articles for the environmental sciences journal VertigO, digital and open access scientific publication.
This experiment did not last long enough (4 months) and was not deployed on a large enough corpus (10 preprints) to lead to firm quantitative conclusions. However, it highlights practical leads and thoughts about the potentialities and the limitations of the open review processes – in the broadest sense – for scientific publishing.
Based on the exemplary of the experiment and a participant observation as a copy-editor devoted to open peer review, the article finally proposes a model from the experimented prototype. This model, named OPRISM, could be implemented on other publishing contexts for social sciences and humanities.
Central and much debated activity in the academic world, peer review refers to different practices such as control, validation, allocation and contradiction exercised by the scientific community for itself. Its scope is wide: from the allocation for funding to the relevance of a recruitment. According to common sense, the control of the scientific community by itself is a guarantee of scientific quality. This issue became even more important in an international context of competition between universities and between scholars themselves.
The results of the experiment will also be presented at the 84th Congress of ACFAS in Montreal (“Scholarly publishing in the digital era: economic models, practices and innovative approaches” http://www.acfas.ca/events/Congress/program/84/stakes-search/40/C) and the 20th ELPUB conference taking in Göttingen (http://meetings.copernicus.org/elpub2016).