Editing Open access (section)

=== Peer review processes ===

{{See also|Scholarly peer review}}

[[Scholarly peer review|Peer review]] of research articles prior to publishing has been common since the 18th century.<ref name="Csiszar 2016">{{Cite journal |last=Csiszar |first=Alex |year=2016 |title=Peer Review: Troubled from the Start |journal=Nature |volume=532 |issue=7599 |pages=306–308 |bibcode=2016Natur.532..306C |doi=10.1038/532306a |pmid=27111616 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name="Moxham 2017">{{Cite journal |last1=Moxham |first1=Noah |last2=Fyfe |first2=Aileen |year=2018 |title=The Royal Society and the Prehistory of Peer Review, 1665–1965 |url=https://kar.kent.ac.uk/65042/3/Peer%20review%20v30%20AAM%20SUBMTD.pdf |url-status=live |journal=The Historical Journal |volume=61 |issue=4 |pages=863–889 |doi=10.1017/S0018246X17000334 |s2cid=164984479 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200831011420/https://kar.kent.ac.uk/65042/3/Peer%20review%20v30%20AAM%20SUBMTD.pdf |archive-date=31 August 2020 |access-date=28 August 2019}}</ref> Commonly reviewer comments are only revealed to the authors and reviewer identities kept anonymous.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Tennant |first1=Jonathan P. |last2=Dugan |first2=Jonathan M. |last3=Graziotin |first3=Daniel |last4=Jacques |first4=Damien C. |last5=Waldner |first5=François |last6=Mietchen |first6=Daniel |last7=Elkhatib |first7=Yehia |last8=B. Collister |first8=Lauren |last9=Pikas |first9=Christina K. |last10=Crick |first10=Tom |last11=Masuzzo |first11=Paola |date=29 November 2017 |title=A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review |journal=F1000Research |volume=6 |pages=1151 |doi=10.12688/f1000research.12037.3 |issn=2046-1402 |pmc=5686505 |pmid=29188015 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Tennant |first=Jonathan P. |date=1 October 2018 |title=The state of the art in peer review |url= https://academic.oup.com/femsle/article/365/19/fny204/5078345|journal=FEMS Microbiology Letters |language=en |volume=365 |issue=19 |doi=10.1093/femsle/fny204 |issn=0378-1097 |pmc=6140953 |pmid=30137294 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200224175402/https://academic.oup.com/femsle/article/365/19/fny204/5078345 |archive-date=24 February 2020 |access-date=3 January 2020}}</ref> The rise of OA publishing has also given rise to experimentation in technologies and processes for peer review.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Noorden |first=Richard Van |date=4 March 2019 |title=Peer-review experiments tracked in online repository |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00777-8 |url-status=live |journal=Nature |language=en |doi=10.1038/d41586-019-00777-8 |s2cid=86845470 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191212063450/https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00777-8 |archive-date=12 December 2019 |access-date=3 January 2020}}</ref> Increasing transparency of peer review and quality control includes posting results to [[preprint server]]s,<ref>{{cite journal | doi=10.1371/journal.pgen.1008565 | title=Technical and social issues influencing the adoption of preprints in the life sciences | year=2020 | last1=Penfold | first1=Naomi C. | last2=Polka | first2=Jessica K. | journal=PLOS Genetics | volume=16 | issue=4 | pages=e1008565 | pmid=32310942 | pmc=7170218 | doi-access=free }}</ref> [[Preregistration (pharmaceutical)|preregistration]] of studies,<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Nosek |first1=Brian A. |last2=Ebersole |first2=Charles R. |last3=DeHaven |first3=Alexander C. |last4=Mellor |first4=David T. |date=12 March 2018 |title=The preregistration revolution |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |language=en |volume=115 |issue=11 |pages=2600–2606 |doi=10.1073/pnas.1708274114 |issn=0027-8424 |pmc=5856500 |pmid=29531091|bibcode=2018PNAS..115.2600N |doi-access=free }}</ref> [[open peer review|open publishing of peer reviews]],<ref name=":15">{{Cite journal |last=Ross-Hellauer |first=Tony |date=31 August 2017 |title=What is open peer review? A systematic review |journal=F1000Research |language=en |volume=6 |pages=588 |doi=10.12688/f1000research.11369.2 |issn=2046-1402 |pmc=5437951 |pmid=28580134 |doi-access=free }}</ref> open publishing of full datasets and analysis code,<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Munafò |first1=Marcus R. |last2=Nosek |first2=Brian A. |last3=Bishop |first3=Dorothy V. M. |last4=Button |first4=Katherine S. |last5=Chambers |first5=Christopher D. |last6=Percie du Sert |first6=Nathalie |last7=Simonsohn |first7=Uri |last8=Wagenmakers |first8=Eric-Jan |last9=Ware |first9=Jennifer J. |last10=Ioannidis |first10=John P. A. |date=10 January 2017 |title=A manifesto for reproducible science |journal=Nature Human Behaviour |language=en |volume=1 |issue=1 |page=0021 |doi=10.1038/s41562-016-0021 |pmid=33954258 |pmc=7610724 |issn=2397-3374 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Pawlik |first1=Mateusz |last2=Hütter |first2=Thomas |last3=Kocher |first3=Daniel |last4=Mann |first4=Willi |last5=Augsten |first5=Nikolaus |date=1 July 2019 |title=A Link is not Enough – Reproducibility of Data |journal=Datenbank-Spektrum |language=en |volume=19 |issue=2 |pages=107–115 |doi=10.1007/s13222-019-00317-8 |issn=1610-1995 |pmc=6647556 |pmid=31402850}}</ref> and other open science practices.<ref name="Munafò 2017b">{{Cite journal |last1=Munafò |first1=Marcus R. |last2=Nosek |first2=Brian A. |last3=Bishop |first3=Dorothy V. M. |last4=Button |first4=Katherine S. |last5=Chambers |first5=Christopher D. |last6=Percie Du Sert |first6=Nathalie |last7=Simonsohn |first7=Uri |last8=Wagenmakers |first8=Eric-Jan |last9=Ware |first9=Jennifer J. |last10=Ioannidis |first10=John P. A. |year=2017 |title=A Manifesto for Reproducible Science |url=http://dare.uva.nl/personal/pure/en/publications/a-manifesto-for-reproducible-science(3534b98f-a374-496b-9ad1-e61539477d66).html |url-status=live |journal=Nature Human Behaviour |volume=1 |issue=1 |page=0021 |doi=10.1038/s41562-016-0021 |pmid=33954258 |pmc=7610724 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200831011429/https://dare.uva.nl/search?identifier=3534b98f-a374-496b-9ad1-e61539477d66 |archive-date=31 August 2020 |access-date=25 September 2019 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name="Bowman 2018">{{Cite journal |last1=Bowman |first1=Nicholas David |last2=Keene |first2=Justin Robert |year=2018 |title=A Layered Framework for Considering Open Science Practices |journal=Communication Research Reports |volume=35 |issue=4 |pages=363–372 |doi=10.1080/08824096.2018.1513273 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name="McKiernan 2016">{{Cite journal |last1=McKiernan |first1=E. C. |last2=Bourne |first2=P. E. |last3=Brown |first3=C. T. |last4=Buck |first4=S. |last5=Kenall |first5=A. |last6=Lin |first6=J. |last7=McDougall |first7=D. |last8=Nosek |first8=B. A. |last9=Ram |first9=K. |last10=Soderberg |first10=C. K. |last11=Spies |first11=J. R. |year=2016 |title=Point of View: How Open Science Helps Researchers Succeed |journal=eLife |volume=5 |doi=10.7554/eLife.16800 |pmc=4973366 |pmid=27387362 |last12=Thaney |first12=K. |last13=Updegrove |first13=A. |last14=Woo |first14=K. H. |last15=Yarkoni |first15=T. |doi-access=free }}</ref> It is proposed that increased transparency of academic quality control processes makes audit of the academic record easier.<ref name=":15" /><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Wicherts |first=Jelte M. |date=29 January 2016 |title=Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals |journal=PLOS ONE |language=en |volume=11 |issue=1 |pages=e0147913 |bibcode=2016PLoSO..1147913W |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0147913 |issn=1932-6203 |pmc=4732690 |pmid=26824759|doi-access=free }}</ref> Additionally, the rise of OA [[Mega journal|megajournals]] has made it viable for their peer review to focus solely on methodology and results interpretation whilst ignoring novelty.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Brembs |first=Björn |date=12 February 2019 |title=Reliable novelty: New should not trump true |journal=PLOS Biology |language=en |volume=17 |issue=2 |pages=e3000117 |doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000117 |issn=1545-7885 |pmc=6372144 |pmid=30753184 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="Spezi 263–283">{{Cite journal |last1=Spezi |first1=Valerie |last2=Wakeling |first2=Simon |last3=Pinfield |first3=Stephen |last4=Creaser |first4=Claire |last5=Fry |first5=Jenny |last6=Willett |first6=Peter |date=13 March 2017 |title=Open-access mega-journals |journal=Journal of Documentation |language=en |volume=73 |issue=2 |pages=263–283 |doi=10.1108/JD-06-2016-0082 |issn=0022-0418 |doi-access=free}}</ref> Major criticisms of the influence of OA on peer review have included that if OA journals have incentives to publish as many articles as possible then peer review standards may fall (as aspect of predatory publishing), increased use of preprints may populate the academic corpus with un-reviewed junk and propaganda, and that reviewers may self-censor if their identity is open. Some advocates propose that readers will have increased skepticism of preprint studies - a traditional hallmark of scientific inquiry.<ref name="TenMyths" />