Note: This report is a pre-print of an article intended for peer-reviewed publication. The authors gratefully invite comments until 22 May 2017 here on the OpenAIRE blog - please leave any reviews/comments in the comments section below. All feedback will be gratefully received.Further OpenAIRE outputs investigating open peer review:
For direct questions or comments, please contact:
I have two comments.
some more detailed data on marketing of the survey would be needed. Specially in social media it can easily happen that supporters of Open Peer Review more likely will see such a survey and also more likely attend such a survey. How did you engage researchers more critically about the topic? If the survey is already marketed a survey about Open Peer Review the result is maybe different if you ask similar questions in a survey about the Peer Review System in general. If the survey is about Open Peer Review maybe scientists who are totally against it are not willing attend the study. Certainly this behavior would have an big impact on the interpretation of the results.
With nearly 50% Earth and env. scientists in total the share in the area of STM would be even higher. To formulate in case results for the whole STM field is quite tendentious. The scientific communication in the different fields of STM are too different to draw conclusions for STM.
Even if both problems can't be solved they should be discussed in the paper.
Many thanks for taking the time to read and comment. The issues you raise are very important. The first issue is one general to open web surveys - how can we be sure of avoiding bias amongst the people who choose to take part? Point taken that we could expand on what we did to try to avoid/mitigate this - we'll expand in the revised version. As background: We did explicitly try to attract also critical voices - for example, by asking the Scholarly Kitchen blog to distribute information to their readers (which they did). We are also open in the report in stating that self-selection amongst participants might skew the results towards a more pro-"open" point of view. Finally, we made a point of repeating a question from several previous general peer review survey (Ware) regarding general levels of satisfaction with the current system of schol comms - with the aim of gauging to what extent our collection method skewed towards those more favourable to "open" than the general population.
Regarding your second point, you are right that the coverage of differing disciplines is certainly uneven, and that the differences between STM subjects are huge in terms of methods and attitudes. Nonetheless, I do think it is valuable and interesting (and fairly standard practice within the literature) to draw the distinction between STEM subjects and Humanities/Social Sciences. Nonetheless, we'll see what we can do to improve this analysis for the revision.