최소 단어 이상 선택하여야 합니다.
최대 10 단어까지만 선택 가능합니다.
다음과 같은 기능을 한번의 로그인으로 사용 할 수 있습니다.
NTIS 바로가기한국문헌정보학회지 = Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science, v.57 no.2, 2023년, pp.79 - 96
조재인 (인천대학교 문헌정보학과) , 박종도 (인천대학교 문헌정보학과)
This study analyzed the open peer review results for 585 papers in the field of social sciences in F1000Research, a representative OPR(Open Peer Review) platform, and checked the relationship between the number of cited-by, altmetrics and review score. In addition, by verifying whether the review sc...
Hur, Won-Moo (2013). How researchers estimate indirect effect using bootstrapping: the case?of simple, multiple, and double mediation. Korea Business Review, 6(3), 43-59.
Jeong, Yong-il, Ahn, Sungsoo, & Noh, Ji-yoon (2022). A study on awareness of open access?practices for academic research information. Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Information?and Commucation Sciences Conference, 18-21.
Kim, Ji-Young, Kim, Hyun Soo, & Shim, Wonsik (2020). A study on open peer review perception?of Korean authors in a mega OA journal. Journal of the Korean Society for Information?Management, 37(4), 131-150.
ASAPbio (2018). Transparency, recognition, and innovation in peer review in the life sciences:?peer review survey results. Available: https://asapbio.org/peer-review/survey
Belluz, J., Plumer, B., & Resnick, B. (2016). The 7 biggest problems facing science, according?to 270 scientists. Vox. Available:?https://www.vox.com/2016/7/14/12016710/science-challeges-research-funding-peer-review-process
Bornmann, L. & Leydesdorff, L. (2013). The validation of (advanced) bibliometric indicators?through peer assessments: a comparative study using data from InCites and F1000Research?Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 286-291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.12.003
Bornmann, L., Wolf, M., & Daniel, H. D. (2012). Closed versus open reviewing of journal?manuscripts: how far do comments differ in language use? Scientometrics, 91, 843-856.?http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0569-5
European Commission (2020). European Commission awards contract for setting up an open?access publishing platform. Available:?https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/news/all-research-and-innovation-news/european-commission-awards-contract-setting-open-access-publishing-platform-2020-03-20_en
F1000Research (2023). https://f1000research.com/
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis:?A Regression-Based Approach (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Huggett, S. (2012) F1000Research journal rankings: an alternative way to evaluate the scientific?impact of scholarly communications. Research Trends, 1(26), Article 3. Available:?https://www.researchtrends.com/researchtrends/vol1/iss26/3
Janowicz, K. & Hitzler, P. (2012). Open and transparent: the review process of the semantic web journal. Learned Publishing, 25(1), 48-55. http://doi.org/10.1087/20120107
Khan, K. (2010). Is open peer review the fairest system? No. BMJ, 341, c6425.?http://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c6425
Merton, R. K. (1968). Matthew effect in science: reward and communication systems of science?are considered. Science, 159(3810), 56-63.
Mulligan, A., Hall, L., & Raphael, E. (2013). Peer review in a changing world: an international?study measuring the attitudes of researchers. Journal of American Society for Information?Science and Technology, 64, 132-161. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22798
Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal?of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99, 178-182. http://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178
Thelwall, M., Allen, L., Papas, E.-R., Nyakoojo, Z., & Weigert, V. (2021). Does the use of open,?non-anonymous peer review in scholarly publishing introduce bias? evidence from the?F1000Research post-publication open peer review publishing model. Journal of Information?Science, 47(6), 809-820. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551520938678
van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S., Black, N., & Savage, R. (1999). Effect of open peer review?on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial. British?Medical Journal, 318(7175), 23. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23
Vines, T. (2013). How rigorous is the post-publication review process at F1000 research? Available:?https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/03/27/how-rigorous-is-the-post-publication-review-process-at-f1000-research/
Walsh, E., Rooney, M., Appleby, L., & Wilkinson, G. (2000). Open peer review: a randomised?controlled trial. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 176(1), 47-51.?https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.176.1.47
Waltman, L. & Costas, R. (2014). F1000Research recommendations as a potential new data?source for research evaluation: a comparison with citations. Journal of the Association for?Information Science & Technology, 65(3), 433-445.
Wang, P., Williams, J., Zhang, N., & Wu, Q. (2020). F1000Research Prime recommended articles?and their citations: an exploratory study of four journals. Scientometrics 122, 933-955. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03302-w
Williams, A. E. (2017). F1000: an overview and evaluation. Information and Learning Sciences,?118(7-8), 364-371. https://doi-org-ssl.access.inu.ac.kr/10.1108/ILS-06-2017-0065
Wolfram, D., Wang, P., Hembree, A., & Park, H. (2020). Open peer review: promoting transparency?in open science. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03488-4
Zong, Q., Fan, L., Xie, Y., & Huang, J. (2020). The relationship of polarity of post-publication?peer review to citation count: evidence from publons. Online Information Review, 44(3),?583-602. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-01-2019-0027
Zong, Q., Xie, Y., & Liang, J. (2020). Does open peer review improve citation count? evidence?from a propensity score matching analysis of PeerJ. Scientometrics, 125, 607-623.?https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03545-y?
*원문 PDF 파일 및 링크정보가 존재하지 않을 경우 KISTI DDS 시스템에서 제공하는 원문복사서비스를 사용할 수 있습니다.
오픈액세스 학술지에 출판된 논문
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.