﻿OpenAIRE Open Peer Review Survey 

2016

This data set contains:

- Full data files of a 2016 survey of attitudes to Open Peer Review in xls and csv formats
- Survey questions (pdf)
- Readme file (txt)

Between 8 September and 7 October 2016, OpenAIRE held a survey designed to aid the development 
of appropriate OPR approaches by providing evidence about the attitudes of authors, editors and 
reviewers towards OPR, their reservations and needs, as well as to gauging current levels of 
experience and reservation with different types of OPR. A supplementary aim was to collect 
feedback on a provisional definition of OPR as created during another strand of work. The survey 
aimed to aid the development of appropriate OPR approaches by providing evidence about the 
attitudes of authors, editors and reviewers towards OPR, their reservations and needs, as well 
as to gauge current levels of experience and reservations with different types of OPR. The survey was 
conducted via an openly accessible online questionnaire (using the scientific survey platform SoSci, 
www.soscisurvey.de). It received a total of 3062 complete responses (a further 635 responses were 
discarded  as incomplete). The survey was open to all wishing to take part and distributed via social 
media, scholarly communications mailing lists, publisher newsletters and, in one case, a publisher 
internal mailing list (Copernicus Publications). 

## Overview of variables used ##

Overview of 85 variables, more details are provided below:

 

 [1] "CASE"     "SERIAL"   "REF"      "QUESTNNR" "MODE"     "STARTED"  "DG02"     "DG03"     "DG04"    
[10] "DG05"     "DG05_01"  "DG05_02"  "DG05_04"  "DG05_05"  "DG05_06"  "DG05_06a" "DG06"     "DG06_01" 
[19] "DG06_02"  "DG06_04"  "DG06_05"  "DG06_06"  "DG06_06a" "PR01"     "FC05_01"  "FC05_02"  "FC05_03" 
[28] "FC05_04"  "FC05_05"  "FC05_06"  "FC05_07"  "AG01_01"  "AG01_02"  "AG01_03"  "AG01_04"  "AG02_01" 
[37] "AG02_02"  "AG02_04"  "AG02_05"  "AG02_06"  "AG06_01"  "AG06_02"  "AG06_03"  "AG06_04"  "AG06_05" 
[46] "AG06_06"  "AG07_01"  "AG07_02"  "AG07_03"  "AG08_01"  "AG08_02"  "AG08_03"  "AG03"     "AG03_01" 
[55] "AG03_02"  "AG03_03"  "AG04"     "AG04_01"  "AG04_02"  "AG04_03"  "AG05"     "AG05_01"  "AG05_02" 
[64] "AG05_03"  "D201"     "D202_01"  "D203_01"  "TIME001"  "TIME002"  "TIME003"  "TIME004"  "TIME005" 
[73] "TIME006"  "TIME007"  "TIME008"  "TIME_SUM" "MAILSENT" "LASTDATA" "FINISHED" "Q_VIEWER" "LASTPAGE"
[82] "MAXPAGE"  "MISSING"  "MISSREL"  "DEG_TIME"

Information on standard variables:



CASE Sequential number of response

REF Reference if such a link was provided with the questionnaire

LASTPAGE Number of page which was last edited and submitted

QUESTNNR Identification code of the response

MODE Information about whether the questionnaire was started during the pretest or by a project member

STARTED Start date and hour

FINISHED Information about whether the questionnaire was finished

TIME_001... Time spent on questionnaire page



Section DG: Demographics

[DG02] Dropdown Selection
Age
"Please tell us your age"

DG02 Age
1 = under 24
2 = 25-34
3 = 35-44
4 = 45-54
5 = 55-64
6 = over 64
-9 = Not answered

[DG03] Dropdown Selection
Region
"What region are you living in?"

DG03 Region
1 = Africa
2 = America
3 = Asia
4 = Europe
5 = Oceania/Australia
-9 = Not answered

[DG04] !Selection
Subject
"What subject discipline are you specialized in?"

DG04 Subject
1 = Agriculture and Food sciences
2 = Arts and Architecture
3 = Biology and Life sciences
4 = Chemistry
5 = Computer Sciences / IT
6 = Earth and environmental Sciences
7 = Economics
8 = Health Sciences
9 = History and Archeology
10 = Languages and Literature
11 = Law and Political science
12 = Mathematics and Statistics
13 = Physics and Astronomy
14 = Psychology and Philosophy
15 = Social Sciences
16 = Technology and Engineering
-1 = None of the above
-9 = Not answered

[DG05] !Multiple Choice
role
"In which scholarly communication roles do you have experience?"

DG05 role: Residual option (negative) or number of selected options
-1 = None of the above
DG05_01 Editor
DG05_02 Author
DG05_04 Publisher
DG05_05 Reviewer
DG05_06 Other(s), please specify
1 = Not checked
2 = Checked
DG05_06a Other(s), please specify (free text)
Free text

[DG06] !Multiple Choice
opr-role
"Do you have personal experience of open peer review as"

DG06 opr-role: Residual option (negative) or number of selected options
-1 = None of the above
DG06_01 Editor
DG06_02 Author
DG06_04 Publisher
DG06_05 Reviewer
DG06_06 Other(s), please specify
1 = Not checked
2 = Checked
DG06_06a Other(s), please specify (free text)
Free text
Section PR: PR general

[PR01] !Horizontal Selection
PR system
"Overall, how satisfied are you with the peer review system used by scholarly journals?"

PR01 PR system
1 = Very dissatisfied
2 = Dissatisfied
3 = Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
4 = Satisfied
5 = Very satisfied
-1 = Don't know
-9 = Not answered

[PR02] !Scale (fully labeled)
PR system2
"Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements"

PR02_01 The current peer review system is the best we can achieve
PR02_02 Peer review in journals needs a complete overhaul
PR02_03 Peer review is completely unnecessary
PR02_04 Peer review is holding back scientific communication
PR02_05 Scientific communication is greatly helped by peer review of published journal papers
PR02_06 Without peer review there is no control in scientific communication
1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = Strongly agree
-1 = Don't know
-9 = Not answered

[PR04] !Scale (fully labeled)
PR System 3
"How effective do you think peer review is at meeting the following objectives?"

PR04_01 Peer review selects the best manuscripts for the journal
PR04_02 It effectively determines the originality of the manuscript
PR04_03 Peer review improves the quality of the published paper
PR04_04 It determines the importance of the findings
PR04_05 It detects plagiarism
PR04_06 It detects academic fraud
1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Neither agree nor disagree
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly agree
-1 = Don't<br>know
-9 = Not answered
Section FC: Factors

[FC05] !Scale (fully labeled)
factors of
"There are many ways peer review processes can be modified. Here we define some of these innovations."

FC05_01 Open Reports: Peer review where review reports are published alongside the relevant article.
FC05_02 Open Identity: Peer review where authors and reviewers are aware of each other's identity.
FC05_03 Open Participation: Peer review that allows the wider community to contribute to the review process.
FC05_04 Open Interaction: Peer review that allows and encourages direct reciprocal discussion between author(s) and reviewers, as well as between reviewers.
FC05_05 Open pre-review manuscripts: Manuscripts are made immediately available (e.g., via pre-print servers like ArXiv) in advance of any formal peer review procedures.
FC05_06 Open final-version commenting: Review or commenting on final "version of record" publications.
FC05_07 Open platforms: Peer review that is de-coupled from publishing in that it is facilitated by a different organisational entity than the venue of publication.
1 = Much worse
2 = worse
3 = Neither better nor worse
4 = Better
5 = Much better
-1 = Don't<br>know
-9 = Not answered
Section AG: Attitudes

[AG01] !Scale (fully labeled)
Attitudes General
"Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements."

AG01_01 The overall current system of scholarly communications works well.
AG01_02 Making research publications open access should be common scholarly practice.
AG01_03 Making research data open access should be common scholarly practice.
AG01_04 Open Peer Review should be common scholarly practice.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
-1 = Don't know
-9 = Not answered

[AG02] !Scale (fully labeled)
Attitudes Open Reports
"Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements."

AG02_01 Published review reports provide useful information for the reader.
AG02_02 Publishing review reports will make reviewers less likely to make strong criticisms.
AG02_04 Publishing review reports will increase the quality of reviews.
AG02_05 Potential reviewers are less likely to agree to review for journals that publish review reports.
AG02_06 Potential authors are less likely to submit to journals that publish review reports.
1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Neither agree nor disagree
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly agree
-1 = Don't know
-9 = Not answered
[AG06] !Scale (fully labeled)
Attitudes Open IDs
"Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements."

AG06_01 Making reviewer identities open will make reviewers less likely to make strong criticisms.
AG06_02 Making reviewer identities open will increase the quality of reviews.
AG06_03 Reviewers should be allowed to choose whether or not to make their identities open.
AG06_04 Making reviewer identities open is fairer to authors.
AG06_05 Potential reviewers are less likely to agree to review for journals that make reviewer identities open.
AG06_06 Potential authors are less likely to submit to journals that make reviewer identities open.
1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Neither agree nor disagree
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly agree
-1 = Don't know
-9 = Not answered

[AG07] !Scale (fully labeled)
Attitudes Open Particip
"Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements."

AG07_01 Everybody with sufficient knowledge should be able to participate in the review process regardless of their formal qualifications or area of work.
AG07_02 Close circles of reviewers and editors hold back innovative research.
AG07_03 Reviewers are more likely to review if they are invited.
1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Neither agree nor disagree
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly agree
-1 = Don't know
-9 = Not answered

[AG08] !Scale (fully labeled)
Attitudes Open Others
"Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements."

AG08_01 Increased interaction between authors & reviewers will result in better publications
AG08_02 Manuscripts should be made openly accessible before peer review begins.
AG08_03 Blog articles, online journal clubs and social media commentary on final-version publications are part of peer review.
1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Neither agree nor disagree
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly agree
-1 = Don't know
-9 = Not answered

[AG03] !Multiple Choice
Experience Open Report
"We defined "Open Reports" as peer review where review reports are published alongside the relevant article."

AG03 Experience Open Report: Residual option (negative) or number of selected options
Integer
AG03_01 reviewer
AG03_02 author
AG03_03 neither
1 = Not checked
2 = Checked

[AG04] !Multiple Choice
Experience Open ID
"We defined "Open Identity" as peer review where authors and reviewers are aware of each other's identity"

AG04 Experience Open ID: Residual option (negative) or number of selected options
Integer
AG04_01 reviewer
AG04_02 author
AG04_03 neither
1 = Not checked
2 = Checked
[AG05] !Multiple Choice
Experience Open Participation
"We defined "Open Participation" as peer review that allows the wider community to contribute to the review p..."

AG05 Experience Open Participation: Residual option (negative) or number of selected options
Integer
AG05_01 reviewer
AG05_02 author
AG05_03 neither
1 = Not checked
2 = Checked
Section PF: platform

[PF01] !Selection
platform general
"Have you ever used an alternative (open) publishing/review platform?"

PF01 platform general
1 = No
2 = Yes
-9 = Not answered

[PF02] !Multiple Choice
platform incentive
"What would encourage you to use open review tools/methods?"

PF02 platform incentive: Residual option (negative) or number of selected options
Integer
PF02_01 Reviewer`s open ID
PF02_02 Open review report
PF02_03 Open dissemination of scholarly results
PF02_04 Community involvement in the review process
PF02_05 Independent review system (separated from publishing)
PF02_06 [No Description] 06
1 = Not checked
2 = Checked
[PF03] Text Input
Freifeld für PF01
PF03_01 Which one?
Free text
Section D2: Definition End

[D201] !Extended Selection
Definition
"Do you agree with this definition of Open Peer Review"

D201 Definition
1 = Yes, I agree
2 = No, I don’t agree
-9 = Not answered

[D202] Text Input
Definition corr
"If you do not agree, why?"

D202_01 [01]
Free text

[D203] Text Input
General Comment
"Do you have any other comments?"

D203_01 [01]
Free text

Acknowledgement: This work is funded by the European Commission H2020 project OpenAIRE2020 (Grant agreement: 643410, Call: H2020-EINFRA-2014-1)

Citation: Cite data as: Ross-Hellauer, A. et al. OpenAIRE Open Peer Review Survey 2016. Zenodo. ADD DOI HERE

Contact: Dr Anthony Ross-Hellauer, University of Göttingen, State and University Library, ross-hellauer@sub.uni-goettingen.de
Dr Birgit Schmidt, University of Göttingen, State and University Library, bschmidt@sub.uni-goettingen.de
