Open peer review feedback

[S-Haime]

Feedback from JR - Glossa. FD 8198 "With respect to Open Peer review, my request is even more specific, as I would like to see this as a reviewer-driven option in Janeway (which would make it unique, really, and allow us to socialize OPR more easily):

1. the reviewer decides:

a. whether their review is made available online alongside the article (reansparent peer review)

b. whether they wish to sign their review when it is made available (fully open peer review).

So this needs two separate buttons available to the reviewer in the reviewer pane.

2. Clicking ‘yes’ on (1a) automatically (easy for me to say, right?) turns the reviewer’s .pdf review into a supplementary file with its own dependent DOI. This is signaled to SiliconChips who refer to that review and the dependent DOI at the end of the article under a new section called ‘Peer Reviews’ (as they already do not for hosted additional material Janeway hosts for the authors)

3. Clicking ‘yes’ on (1b) asks the reviewer to update their ORCID and afilliation, and the reviewer’s name, ORCID and affiliation are accordingly published in front of the dependent DOI leading to the review in the PDF and the XML of the article. Again this should lead to a visible isntruction for SiliconChips to insert that reviewer name in the relevant ‘Open Reviews section of the article.

This will minimize the work of the editor, which has always been my greatest fear with Open Peer review: having to curate 4 papers (the paper and 3 reviews) instead of just the paper."

Johan / @ajrbyers / @S-Haime may wish to have meeting to discuss.

[joemull]

See also a slightly different feature request in #3264.

[StephDriver]

questions, assuming the reviewer has an account

• then how would these open reviews be represented on their dashboard and would they be able to edit these settings later - perhaps allowing them to edit the setting for 48 hours (as at that point it would be unpublished?)
• and can should they have a default or will they need to select a or b each time on a review by review basis?

And regarding a default - should the editor / journal manager be able to set a default option between a and b so that they decide whether a reviewer a choice at all, or within that choice is strongly encouraged to a particular option?

[ajrbyers]

Discussed at BRF: @ajrbyers to investigate.