Open Science and peer-review in the humanities

Tallaksen, Hanne Rennesund Open Science and peer-review in the humanities., 2014 UNSPECIFIED. (Unpublished) [Other]

[img] Text
Open Science.pdf - Draft version

Download (215kB)

English abstract

The purpose of this paper is to consider alternatives to the traditional system of peer review. I will argue that new methods of review should be more in accordance with the principles of Open Science. Current modes of carrying out peer review are functioning as barriers against more transparent ways of doing research. I will focus on peer reviewing as it is done in the humanities. These sciences seem to be clinging particularly tight to traditional ways of publishing and doing peer review. After looking at traditional peer review and the troubles related to it, I will discuss alternative ways of reviewing scholarly material. The anonymity of reviewers and authors, the appropriate time to make papers public, and how to reward reviewers are topics that are of importance in this context.

Item type: Other
Keywords: Peer review, Humanities, Open Science
Subjects: B. Information use and sociology of information > BG. Information dissemination and diffusion.
E. Publishing and legal issues. > EB. Printing, electronic publishing, broadcasting.
G. Industry, profession and education.
G. Industry, profession and education. > GA. Information industry.
Depositing user: Hanne Rennesund Tallaksen
Date deposited: 25 Nov 2014 12:36
Last modified: 25 Nov 2014 12:36


"SEEK" links will first look for possible matches inside E-LIS and query Google Scholar if no results are found.

Bartling, S., & Friesike, S. (2014). Towards Another Scientific Revolution. In S. Bartling & S. Friesike (Eds.), Opening Science: The Evolving Guide on How the Internet is Changing (pp. 3-15). Heidelberg: Springer.

Bhattacharjee, Y. (2013, April 26, 2013). The Mind of a Con Man. New York Times. Retrieved from

Binswanger, M. (2014). Excellence by Nonsense: The Competition for Publications in Modern Science. In S. Bartling & S. Friesike (Eds.), Opening Science (pp. 49-72). Heidelberg: Springer.

Bulger, M. E., Meyer, E. T., De la Flor, G., Terras, M., Wyatt, S., Jirotka, M., . . . Madsen, C. M. (2011). Reinventing research? Information practices in the humanities Information Practices in the Humanities (March 2011). A Research Information Network Report.

CommentPress. (2014). Welcome to CommentPress. Retrieved November 13, 2014, from

Fitzpatrick, K. (2007). MediaCommons: Scholarly Publishing in the Age of the Internet. Retrieved 13 November, 2014, from

Fitzpatrick, K. (2011). Planned obsolescence: publishing, technology and the future of the academy. New York: New York University Press.

Godlee, F. (2000). The ethics of peer review. In A. H. Jones & F. McLellan (Eds.), Ethical issues in biomedical publication (pp. 59-84). Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Haak, L. (2014). ORCID and CASRAI: Acknowledging Peer Review Activities. Retrieved from

Nielsen, M. (2009). Three myths about scientific peer review Retrieved from About us. Retrieved 13 November, 2014, from

Sidler, M. (2014). Open Science and the Three Cultures: Expanding Open Science to all Domains of Knowledge Creation. In S. Bartling & S. Friesike (Eds.), Opening Science: the evolving guide on how the internet is changing research, collaboration and scholarly publishing (pp. 81-85). Heidelberg: Springer.

Soergel, D., Saunders, A., & McCallum, A. (2013). Open Scholarship and Peer Review: a Time for Experimentation. Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Machine Learning, 28.

Web 2.0. (2014). Retrieved 13 November, 2014, from


Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item