Open Scholarship and Peer Review: a Time for Experimentation 

David Soergel, Adam Saunders, Andrew McCallum

May 14, 2013 (modified: May 14, 2013) ICML 2013 PeerReview submission readers: everyone
  • Decision: oral
  • Abstract: Across a wide range of scientific communities, there is growing interest in accelerating and improving the progress of scholarship by making the peer review process more open. Multiple new publication venues and services are arising, especially in the life sciences, but each represents a single point in the multi-dimensional landscape of paper and review access for authors, reviewers and readers. In this paper, we introduce a vocabulary for describing the landscape of choices regarding open access, formal peer review, and public commentary. We argue that the opportunities and pitfalls of open peer review warrant experimentation in these dimensions, and discuss desiderata of a flexible system. We close by describing OpenReview.net, our web-based system in which a small set of flexible primitives support a wide variety of peer review choices, and which provided the reviewing infrastructure for the 2013 International Conference on Learning Representations. We intend this software to enable trials of different policies, in order to help scientific communities explore open scholarship while addressing legitimate concerns regarding confidentiality, attribution, and bias.
  • Authorids: soergel@cs.umass.edu, saunders@cs.umass.edu, mccallum@cs.umass.edu

Loading