Open Scholarship and Peer Review: a Time for Experimentation

No abstract is available for this paper.

• Publication year

  2013

• Venue

  Unknown venue

• Publication date

  2013-05-14

• Fields of study

  Sociology, Computer Science

• Identifiers

  No identifiers available.

• External record

  Open on Semantic Scholar

• Source metadata

  Semantic Scholar

• No claims are published for this paper.

• No concepts are published for this paper.

• Biology direct: celebrating 7 years of open, published peer review

  2013cited by this paper
• The Case for Open Preprints in Biology

  2013cited by this paper
• Large and linked in scientific publishing

  2012cited by this paper
• An emerging consensus for open evaluation: 18 visions for the future of scientific publishing

  2012cited by this paper
• Nature’s sexism

  2012cited by this paper
• Open Data and the Social Contract of Scientific Publishing

  2010cited by this paper
• Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors.

  2008cited by this paper
• Open peer review: A randomised controlled trial

  2000cited by this paper
• Twenty Years Ago Today

  2000cited by this paper
• Opening up BMJ peer review

  1999cited by this paper
• Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial

  1999cited by this paper
• The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered.

  1968cited by this paper

• Rise of the Community Champions: From Reviewer Crunch to Community Power

  2025cites this paper
• ML Researchers Support Openness in Peer Review But Are Concerned About Resubmission Bias

  2025influential citation
• Insights from the ICLR Peer Review and Rebuttal Process

  2025cites this paper
• Paper Copilot: Tracking the Evolution of Peer Review in AI Conferences

  2025cites this paper
• Dynamic optimization of peer review length using information density analysis

  2025cites this paper
• Breaking the gatekeepers: how AI will revolutionize scientific funding

  2025cites this paper
• ReviewHQ: An API-Based System for Reviewer Assignment and Quality Control in Research Conferences

  2025cites this paper
• Lowering the Cost of Diamond Open Access Journals

  2025cites this paper
• The AI Review Lottery: Widespread AI-Assisted Peer Reviews Boost Paper Scores and Acceptance Rates

  2024cites this paper
• Vulnerability of Text-Matching in ML/AI Conference Reviewer Assignments to Collusions

  2024cites this paper
• Peer Review as A Multi-Turn and Long-Context Dialogue with Role-Based Interactions

  2024cites this paper
• Deep variability modeling to enhance reproducibility of database performance testing

  2024cites this paper
• 'I'm Categorizing LLM as a Productivity Tool': Examining Ethics of LLM Use in HCI Research Practices

  2024cites this paper
• Iranian researchers’ perspective about concept and effect of open science on research publication

  2023cites this paper
• Enhancing the examination of obstacles in an automated peer review system

  2023cites this paper
• Causal Matching with Text Embeddings: A Case Study in Estimating the Causal Effects of Peer Review Policies

  2023cites this paper
• Peer Prediction for Peer Review: Designing a Marketplace for Ideas

  2023cites this paper
• Challenges, experiments, and computational solutions in peer review

  2022cites this paper
• Calibration with Privacy in Peer Review

  2022cites this paper
• Integrating Rankings into Quantized Scores in Peer Review

  2022cites this paper
• Between Acceptance and Rejection: Challenges for an Automatic Peer Review Process

  2022cites this paper
• An Overview of Challenges, Experiments, and Computational Solutions in Peer Review (Extended Version)

  2022cites this paper
• Advances in Electron Microscopy with Deep Learning

  2021cites this paper
• “Everyone wants to do the model work, not the data work”: Data Cascades in High-Stakes AI

  2021cites this paper
• DISAPERE: A Dataset for Discourse Structure in Peer Review Discussions

  2021influential citation
• Does double‐blind peer review reduce bias? Evidence from a top computer science conference

  2021influential citation
• Microsoft Academic Graph: When experts are not enough

  2020cites this paper
• Code replicability in computer graphics

  2020cites this paper
• ReproducedPapers.org: Openly teaching and structuring machine learning reproducibility

  2020cites this paper
• Peer Reviewing Revisited: Assessing Research with Interlinked Semantic Comments

  2019cites this paper
• Transferring Knowledge from Discourse to Arguments: A Case Study with Scientific Abstracts

  2019cites this paper
• A Neural Citation Count Prediction Model based on Peer Review Text

  2019cites this paper
• Expanding search in the space of empirical ML

  2018cites this paper
• THE REVIEWING PROCESS FOR ISPRS EVENTS

  2018cites this paper
• Popularity of arXiv.org within Computer Science

  2017cites this paper
• Open Peer Review in Scientific Publishing: A Web Mining Study of PeerJ Authors and Reviewers

  2017cites this paper
• Open Review Process [From the Editor]

  2017cites this paper
• The state‐of‐the‐art of open peer review: Early adopters

  2017cites this paper
• Open peer review: an innovation in scientific publishing

  2016cites this paper
• Open Peer Review in Scientific Publishing: A Web Mining Study of PeerJ Authors and Reviewers

  2016cites this paper
• The next generation of action ecology: novel approaches towards global ecological research

  2015cites this paper
• Open Science and peer-review in the humanities

  2014cites this paper
• From an Analog to a Digital Workflow: An Introductory Approach to Digital Editions in Assyriology

  year unknowncites this paper
• Code Replicability in Computer Graphics

  year unknowncites this paper