<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Sto sempre più convincendomi che l'open peer review sia la soluzione più onesta (ovvero la meno ipocrita) per riviste di nicchia o ben definite tematicamente; i revisori invidiano subito gli autori e viceversa (leggendo i loro pareri). Mi sembra soprattutto una soluzione che attribuisce responsabilità esplicita per tutti i coinvolti</div><div id="AppleMailSignature">Buona serata</div><div id="AppleMailSignature">Mauro Guerrini<br><br>Inviato da iPhone</div><div><br>Il giorno 18 apr 2016, alle ore 11:48, Elena Giglia <<a href="mailto:elena.giglia@unito.it">elena.giglia@unito.it</a>> ha scritto:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>Buongiorno<br>
</div>
Vi segnalo il report dell'esperimento di open peer review condotto da Open Edition:<br>
Open peer review: from an experiment to a model. <br>
<strong>Abstract</strong> : This article narrates the development of the
experimentation of an open peer review and open commentary protocols.
This experiment concerns propositions of articles for the environmental
sciences journal VertigO, digital and open
access scientific publication. This experiment did not last long enough
(4 months) and was not deployed on a large enough corpus (10 preprints)
to lead to firm quantitative conclusions. However, it highlights
practical leads and thoughts about the potentialities
and the limitations of the open review processes – in the broadest
sense – for scientific publishing. Based on the exemplary of the
experiment and a participant observation as a copy-editor devoted to
open peer review, the article finally proposes a model
from the experimented prototype. This model, named OPRISM, could be
implemented on other publishing contexts for social sciences and
humanities. Central and much debated activity in the academic world,
peer review refers to different practices such as control,
validation, allocation and contradiction exercised by the scientific
community for itself. Its scope is wide: from the allocation for funding
to the relevance of a recruitment. According to common sense, the
control of the scientific community by itself is
a guarantee of scientific quality. This issue became even more
important in an international context of competition between
universities and between scholars themselves
<br>
<br>
<a href="https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01302597v1" target="_blank">https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01302597v1</a><br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
Buona giornata<br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><span style="color:rgb(103,78,167)">dr. Elena Giglia<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br>Responsabile Ufficio Open Access - Editoria Elettronica<br>Direzione Sviluppo Organizzativo, Innovazione e Servizi Bibliotecari<br>Universita' degli Studi di Torino<br>tel. +39.011.670<b>.4191</b></span><br></span></div><span style="color:rgb(103,78,167)"><a href="http://www.oa.unito.it" target="_blank">www.oa.unito.it </a></span><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>OA-Italia mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:OA-Italia@openarchives.it">OA-Italia@openarchives.it</a></span><br><span><a href="http://openarchives.it/mailman/listinfo/oa-italia">http://openarchives.it/mailman/listinfo/oa-italia</a></span><br><span>PLEIADI: <a href="http://www.openarchives.it/pleiadi/">http://www.openarchives.it/pleiadi/</a></span></div></blockquote></body></html>