Open peer review has been proposed for a number of reasons, in particular, for increasing the transparency of the article selection process for a journal, and for obtaining a broader basis for feedback to the authors and for the acceptance decision. The review discussion may also in itself have a value for the research community. These goals rely on the existence of a lively review discussion, but several experiments with open-process peer review in recent years have encountered the problem of faltering review discussions. The present article addresses the question of how lively review discussion may be fostered by relating the experience of the journal Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence (ETAI) which was an early experiment with open peer review. Factors influencing the discussion activity are identified. It is observed that it is more difficult to obtain lively discussion when the number of contributed articles increases, which implies difficulties for scaling up the open peer review model. Suggestions are made for how this difficulty may be overcome.
Keywords: open peer review, community peer review, two-stage peer review, live discussion
Citation: Sandewall E (2012) Maintaining live discussion in two-stage open peer review. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 6:9. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00009
Received: 15 July 2011;
Paper pending published: 07 August 2011;
Accepted: 03 February 2012; Published online: 21 February 2012.
Edited by:Diana Deca, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
Reviewed by:H. Steven Scholte, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
Copyright: © 2012 Sandewall. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial License, which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in other forums, provided the original authors and source are credited.
*Correspondence: Erik Sandewall, Department of Computer and Information Science, Linköping University, S-58183 Linköping, Sweden e-mail: email@example.com