Hi Peter Sound good but speaking for myself, my plate is pretty full right now, so my contribution has to be limited to offering comments to a jopp-interpretation of the "oath". Happy for you or others to take the lead on this. cheers Mathieu PS. In the meantime we can always refer / link to it as a possible guideline? ________________________________ From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Dr. Peter Troxler <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 9:41 To: Journal of Peer Production's general and public list Subject: Re: [JoPP-Public] Fwd: Open Science Peer Review Oath (via Techdirt) Hi Matthieu go with your analysis re overly-didactic ... good thing we're not exactly "science" here. however, there are quite a few good ideas in the "oath" ... maybe a jopp interpretation of it? / Peter On 16 Nov 2014, at 23:31, Mathieu ONeil <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Peter, all It certainly seems like a worthy enterprise - basically encouraging probity in peer reviewing - if at times perhaps veering into the overly-didactic lane. How do you propose we engage with it? Possibly a link / description from the peer review page? cheers Mathieu ________________________________ From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Dr. Peter Troxler <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 1:07 To: Journal of Peer Production's general and public list Subject: [JoPP-Public] Fwd: Open Science Peer Review Oath (via Techdirt) http://f1000research.com/articles/3-271/v1 is that something to consider for JoPP? / Peter Begin forwarded message: Open access<https://news.techdirt.com/cgi-bin/dada/mail.cgi/r/tddaily/801439137707/trox/fabfolk.com/search.php?q=open+access&search=Search> is about making academic research more widely available, particularly when it is publicly funded. But there is a broader open science movement that seeks to make the entire scientific process -- from initial experiments to the final dissemination of results -- transparent, and thus reproducible. One crucial aspect of that complete process is peer review, whereby experts in a field provide advice about the quality of new research, either to editors prior to a paper being published in a journal, or more directly, by reviewing work publicly online. Recognizing the importance of this step for the integrity and validity of the scientific process, a group has drawn up what it calls the "Open Science Peer Review Oath<https://news.techdirt.com/cgi-bin/dada/mail.cgi/r/tddaily/947894139560/trox/fabfolk.com/>": We have formulated an oath that codifies the role of reviewers in helping to ensure that the science they review is sufficiently open and reproducible; it includes guidelines not just on how to review professionally, but also on how to support transparent, reproducible and responsible research, while optimising its societal impact and maximising its visibility. The Oath's 17 components include commitments to act fairly and ethically, for example, the following: While reviewing this manuscript: i) I will sign my review in order to be able to have an open dialogue with you ii) I will be honest at all times v) I will not unduly delay the review process vi) I will not scoop research that I had not planned to do before reading the manuscript vii) I will be constructive in my criticism x) I will try to assist in every way I ethically can to provide criticism and praise that is valid, relevant and cognisant of community norms It also includes actions specifically designed to foster science that is truly open: xi) I will encourage the application of any other open science best practices relevant to my field that would support transparency, reproducibility, re-use and integrity of your research xiii) I will check that the data, software code and digital object identifiers are correct, and the models presented are archived, referenced, and accessible xiv) I will comment on how well you have achieved transparency, in terms of materials and methodology, data and code access, versioning, algorithms, software parameters and standards, such that your experiments can be repeated independently xv) I will encourage deposition with long-term unrestricted access to the data that underpin the published concept, towards transparency and re-use xvi) I will encourage central long-term unrestricted access to any software code and support documentation that underpin the published concept, both for reproducibility of results and software availability Although the framing of an "Oath" for open science peer review may sound rather over the top -- slightly pompous, even -- it rightly underlines the seriousness with which peer review ought to be conducted. It remains to be seen what kind of response it receives from the wider scientific community, and whether it becomes a fixed element of the open science movement. _______________________________________________ JoPP-Public mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jopp-public