참고문헌
- Kim, H., & Lee, J. (2014). A study of Open Peer Review as new Peer Review. In 2014 Conference of Korea Society for Information Management, 11(1), e0147913.
- Shim, W., An, B. G., Park, S. E., & Kim, H. S. (2020). A quantitative analysis on PLOS ONE articles published by authors affiliated with Korean institutions. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 37(2), 47-69. https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2020.37.2.047
- Yoo, S. (2010). Case-oriented analysis of ethical problems in academic publishing & review process. Ethic Research, 76, 331-364. https://doi.org/10.15801/je.1.76.201003.331
- Almquist, M., Von Allmen, R. S., Carradice, D., Oosterling, S. J., McFarlane, K., & Wijnhoven, B. (2017). A prospective study on an innovative online forum for peer reviewing of surgical science. PloS one, 12(6), e0179031. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179031
- Benos, D. J., Bashari, E., Chaves, J. M., Gaggar, A., Kapoor, N., LaFrance, M., ... & Qadri, Y. (2007). The ups and downs of peer review. Advances in physiology education. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00104.2006
- Bohannon, J. (2013). Who's afraid of peer review?. 60-65. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.342.6154.60
- Burley, R. (2017). Peer review in the 21st. Information Services & Use, 37(3), 259-261. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-170850
- Csiszar, A. (2016). Peer review: Troubled from the start. Nature, 532(7599), 306-308. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/news/peer-review-troubled-from-the-start-1.19763 https://doi.org/10.1038/532306a
- DOAJ (2020). Retrieved from http://doaj.org
- Hengel, E. (2017). Publishing while female: Are women held to higher standards? Evidence from peer review. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.17548
- Johnson, R., Watkinson, A., & Mabe, M. (2018). The STM report. An overview of scientific and scholarly publishing. 5th edition October. Retrieved from https://www.stm-assoc.org/2018_10_04_STM_Report_2018.pdf
- Justice, A. C., Cho, M. K., Winker, M. A., Berlin, J. A., Rennie, D., & Peer Investigators (1998). Does masking author identity improve peer review quality?: A randomized controlled trial. Jama, 280(3), 240-242. Retrieved from https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/187758 https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.240
- Mahoney, M. J. (1977). Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1(2), 161-175. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01173636
- OASPA (n.d.). Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing [Internet]. The Hague: Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association; 2018 [cited 2018 Dec 17]. Retrieved from: https://oaspa.org/principles-of-transparency-and-best-practice-in-scholarly-publishing-3/
- Polka, J. K., Kiley, R., Konforti, B., Stern, B., & Vale, R. D. (2018). Publish peer reviews. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06032-w/
- Rath, M., & Wang, P. (2017, June). Open peer review in the era of open science: A pilot study of researchers' perceptions. In 2017 ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL) (pp. 1-2). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/JCDL.2017.7991608
- Rennie, D. (1998). Freedom and responsibility in medical publication: Setting the balance right. JAMA, 280(3), 300-302. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.300
- Ross-Hellauer T., & Gorogh, E. (2018). Application framework and transformation scenarios for open peer review. OpenUP Deliverable 3.3. Technical report.
- Ross-Hellauer, T. (2017). What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research, 6. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2
- Ross-Hellauer, T., & Gorogh, E. (2019). Guidelines for open peer review implementation. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 4(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0063-9
- Ross-Hellauer, T., Deppe, A., & Schmidt, B. (2017). Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers. PLOS ONE, 12(12), e0189311. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189311
- Schmidt, B. (2018). WOR: Wellcome Open Research-Exploration of year one data. Retrieved from https://github.com/gitti1/WOR
- Schmidt, B., Ross-Hellauer, T., van Edig, X., & Moylan, E. C. (2018). Ten considerations for open peer review. F1000Research, 7. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15334.1
- Smith, R. (1999). Opening up BMJ peer review: A beginning that should lead to complete transparency. BMJ, 318, 4-5. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7175.4
- Tattersall, A. (2015). For what it's worth-the open peer review landscape. Online Information Review, 39(5), 649-663. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-06-2015-0182
- Tennant, J. P., Dugan, J. M., Graziotin, D., Jacques, D. C., Waldner, F., Mietchen, D., ... & Masuzzo, P. (2017). A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review. F1000Research, 6. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12037.3
- Tite, L., & Schroter, S. (2007). Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 61(1), 9-12. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2006.049817
- Van Rooyen, S., Delamothe, T., & Evans, S. J. (2010). Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 341. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c5729
- Van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S., Black, N., & Smith, R. (1999). Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: A randomised trial. BMJ, 318(7175), 23-27. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23
- Wang, P., & Tahamtan, I., (2017). The state-of-the-art of open peer review: Early adopters, 80th Annual Meeting of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Washington, DC. Oct. 27-Nov. 1. 54(1): 819-820. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.2017.14505401170
- Weller, A. C. (1995). Editorial peer review: Research, current practices, and implications for librarians. Serials Review, 21(1), 53-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/0098-7913(95)90021-7
- Wicherts, J. M. (2016). Peer review quality and transparency of the peer-review process in open access and subscription journals. PLOS ONE, 11(1), e0147913. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147913
- Wicherts, J. M., Kievit, R. A., Bakker, M., & Borsboom, D. (2012). Letting the daylight in: Reviewing the reviewers and other ways to maximize transparency in science. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6, 20. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2012.00020