OPEN PEER REVIEW AS A TOOL FOR IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC RESEARCH
Abstract
The article is devoted to the analysis of modern mechanisms of quality assurance of scientific publications, stimulation of scientific discussion and academic integrity. "Blind review", which is mostly used by national scientific periodicals, does not always ensure the publication of original and relevant scientific research results. Moreover, such a method of reviewing does not form sufficient prerequisites for the good faith of the reviewer, a careful attitude towards the study of the content of the scientific publication that is being reviewed. Scientific discussion, which can potentially improve both the quality of scientific research and the dissemination of knowledge, is practically impossible under the "blind review". The authors have analyzed the advantages and disadvantages of "open review" mechanisms, which are gradually being introduced in the European scientific space. It has been established that such review prevents unfair criticism, contributes to the objective assessment of scientific publication, provides the opportunity for scientific discussion among specialists of a certain sphere and timely detection of plagiarism and "rewriting". At the same time, the "open review" bears number of shortcomings: the potential reluctance of the reviewer on its behalf to submit a negative review or even work on writing it, which requires some incentives from editorial boards and organizational committees of scientific conferences. The authors has justified the need to diversify the mechanisms for reviewing scientific publications in the Ukrainian scientific and educational environment as a way to improve the quality of socio-economic research in Ukraine.
References
Женченко М.І. Нова модель рецензування наукових публікацій у цифровому середовищі. Держава та регіони: Соціальні комунікації, 2016 р., No 1 (25). С. 169-172.
Ножевникова Е.Г. Открытое рецензирование: сущность, перспективы, проблемы организации. Научный редактор и издатель. 2018; 3(1-2). С.33-37.
Привалова В.М. Открытое рецензирование как форма развития новых идей в науке. Известия Самарского научного центра Российской академии наук. Социальные, гуманитарные, медико-биологические науки. 2018. No3 (60). С.5-9.
Реалії відкритого доступу. Вісн. НАН України. 2013. No 10. С. 107-110.
Bornmann, L. Bias cut. women, it seems, often get a raw deal in science – so how can discrimination be tackled? Nature. 2007. 445, p. 566.
Ceci, S. J., and Peters, D P. Peer review: a study of reliability. Change 1982. 14, p. 44-48.
Goodman, S. N., Berlin, J., Fletcher, S. W., and Fletcher, R. H. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at annals of internal medicine. Ann. Intern. Med. 1994. 121, p. 11-21.
Godlee, F., Gale, C. R., and Martyn, C. N. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1998. 280, p. 237-240.
Human Capital Index 2018. Retrieved from: https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/dataset/human-capital-index
Kassirer, J. P., and Campion, E. W. Peer review: crude and understudied, but indispensable. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1994. 272, p. 96-97.
Kronick, D. A. Peer review in 18th century scientific journalism. JAMA 1990. 263, p. 1321-1322.
Link, A. M. Us and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias. JAMA 1998. 280, p. 246-247.
Lynch, J. R., Cunningham, M. R., Warme, W. J., Schaad, D. C., Wolf, F. M., and Leopold, S. S. Commercially funded and united states-based research is more likely to be published; good-quality studies with negative outcomes are not. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am.2007.89, p. 1010-1018.
Marsh, H. W., Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Daniel, H.-D., and O’Mara, A. Gender effects in the peer reviews of grant proposals: a comprehensive meta-analysis comparing traditional and multilevel approaches. Rev. Educ. Res. 2009. 79, p. 1290-1326.
Open Science Retrieved from: http: http://www.openingscience.org/tag/peerevaluation/
Pöschl U. Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation. Frontiers in computational neuroscience. 2012. Т. 6. С. 33.
Ross, J. S., Gross, C. P., Desai, M. M., Hong, Y., Grant, A. O., Daniels, S. R., Hachinski, V. C., Gibbons, R. J., Gardner, T. J., and Krumholz, H. M. Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2006. 295, p. 1675-1680
Smith, R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J. R. Soc. Med.2006. 99, p. 178-182.
Ware, M., and Monkman, M. (2008). Peer Review in Scholarly Journals: Perspective of the Scholarly Community – An International Study. Survey Commissioned by the Publishing Research Consortium. Retrieved from: http://www.publishingresearch. net/PeerReview.htm
WEF (2018) The Global Competitiveness Report 2018. Retrieved from: http://www3. weforum.org/ docs/GCR2018/05FullReport/TheGlobalCompetitiveness Report 2018.pdf
Zhenchenko M. (2016). The New Model of Scientific Publications Peer Review in the Digital Environment State and regions. Series: Social Communications.
Nozhevnikova E. G. (2018). Open review: essence, perspectives, challenges of organization. Science, editor and publisher. 3 (1-2): 33-37.
Privalova, VM (2018). Open review as a form of development of new ideas in science. Izvestiya Samara Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Social, humanitarian, medical and biological sciences, 20 (3 (60)).
Realities of open access. Visn NAS of Ukraine. 2013. No 10. С. 107-110.
Bornmann, L. (2007). Bias cut. women, it seems, often get a raw deal in science – so how can discrimination be tackled? Nature 445, 566.
Ceci, S. J., and Peters, D. P. (1982). Peer review: a study of reliability. Change 14, 44-48.
Goodman, S. N., Berlin, J., Fletcher, S. W., and Fletcher, R. H. (1994). Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at annals of internal medicine.Ann.Intern.Med.121,11-21.
Godlee, F., Gale, C. R., and Martyn, C. N. (1998). Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 280, 237-240.
Human Capital Index 2018. Retrieved from: https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/dataset/human-capital-index
Kassirer, J. P., and Campion, E. W. (1994). Peer review: crude and understudied, but indispensable. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 272, 96-97.
Kronick, D. A. (1990). Peer review in 18th century scientific journalism. JAMA 263, 1321-1322.
Link, A. M. (1998). Us and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias. JAMA 280, 246-247.
Lynch, J. R., Cunningham, M. R., Warme, W. J., Schaad, D. C., Wolf, F. M., and Leopold, S. S. (2007). Commercially funded and united states-based research is more likely to be published; good-quality studies with negative outcomes are not. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 89, 1010-1018.
Marsh, H. W., Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Daniel, H.-D., and O’Mara, A. (2009). Gender effects in the peer reviews of grant proposals: a comprehensive meta-analysis comparing traditional and multilevel approaches. Rev. Educ. Res.79, 1290-1326.
Open Science Retrieved from: http: http://www.openingscience.org/tag/peerevaluation/
Pöschl, U. (2012). Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation. Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 6, 33.
Ross, J. S., Gross, C. P., Desai, M. M., Hong, Y., Grant, A. O., Daniels, S. R., Hachinski, V. C., Gibbons, R. J., Gardner, T. J., and Krumholz, H. M. (2006). Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 295, 1675-1680
Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J. R. Soc. Med. 99, 178-182.
Ware, M., and Monkman, M. (2008). Peer Review in Scholarly Journals: Perspective of the Scholarly Community – An International Study. Survey Commissioned by the Publishing Research Consortium. Retrieved from: http://www.publishingresearch .net/PeerReview.htm
WEF (2018) The Global Competitiveness Report 2018. Retrieved from: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GCR2018/05FullReport/TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2018.pdf
