Peer Review Interactions for Malaysian Journals: The Revamped Open-Peer Review Process

It is said that the new trend of journal publication is moving toward open-peer review (OPR), where interaction among authors, reviewers and readers is considered crucial to the article selection and publication process. To ascertain this notion, a study involving 13 refereed journals in Malaysia was conducted. The result shows that 84.6% of the journal administrators are interested to move from double-blind review to open peer-review process. Although this is the case, no guidelines or models, either conceptually or otherwise, exist to assist the journal administration to migrate. With the intention of providing such required guidelines and models, especially in the Malaysian environment, the concept of Revamped Open-Peer Review Process is proposed.

[1]  F. Godlee Making reviewers visible: openness, accountability, and credit. , 2002, JAMA.

[2]  Vernon L. Smith,et al.  A Comparison of Posted-Offer and Double-Auction Pricing Institutions , 1984 .

[3]  D. Laband,et al.  A citation analysis of the impact of blinded peer review. , 1994, JAMA.

[4]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Measuring Researcher-Production in Information Systems , 2002, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[5]  Zoltan Nadasdy Electronic Journal of Cognitive and Brain Science: A Truly All-Electronic Journal: Let Democracy Replace Peer Review , 1997 .

[6]  Roumen Vragov,et al.  Reviewing and Revamping the Double-Blind Peer Review Process , 2007 .

[7]  W. Starbuck,et al.  Why I Stopped Trying to Understand the Real World , 2004 .

[8]  J. E. Cooling,et al.  The emergence of rapid prototyping as a real-time software development tool , 1989, RTSS 1989.

[9]  Stevan Harnad,et al.  Implementing peer review on the net: scientific quality control in scholarly electronic journals , 1996 .

[10]  David J. Solomon,et al.  The Role of Peer Review for Scholarly Journals in the Information Age , 2007 .

[11]  P D Kumar,et al.  The Future for Electronic Journals , 1996, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

[12]  Fytton Rowland,et al.  The peer‐review process , 2002, Learn. Publ..

[13]  ProvostFoster,et al.  The myth of the double-blind review? , 2003 .

[14]  Stevan Harnad,et al.  Scholarly Skywriting and the Prepublication Continuum of Scientific Inquiry , 1990 .