From the ORCID Blog:
“The formal but completely transparent peer review process post-publication used on both the F1000Prime article recommendation service and on articles published in F1000Research provides us with the opportunity to maximize the credit we can give back to our referees for the often significant time and effort required to produce a good peer review – work that typically remains invisible”, says Rebecca Lawrence, Managing Director of F1000Research. “Enabling referees to both be able to cite their often lengthy referee reports, as well as include them on lists of their outputs such as ORCID records, is a major step forward in properly recognizing this activity that is essential for the advancement of scientific understanding.”
Working with the Consortia Advancing Standards in Research Administration Information (CASRAI), we established a community working group to define a standard field set and business rules that would work across the many types of peer review used in publishing, funding, university research management, and conference presentations. Across formal review types, we found that the main challenge was how to define a standard that is flexible enough to enable the full range of review, from anonymous double-blind processes to fully open review. As a group, we concluded that, for anonymous reviews, the entity requesting and managing reviews should provide an aggregate count of reviews for that reviewer over an appropriate time period.
We are pleased to announce the publication of the Working Group recommendations for a peer review activity data profile. The Working Group concluded that the following citation data elements should be used to describe peer review:
PERSON: Fields, including a person identifier, describing the person who performed the review and is being recognized for this review activity.
REVIEW: Fields, including a review identifier, describing the review itself. In the case of blind or otherwise unshared reviews, this information may be left blank.
SUBJECT: Fields describing the subject of the review, such as the paper, grant or other item. In the case of blind or otherwise unshared reviews, this information also may be left blank.
ORGANIZATION: Fields, including an organization identifier, describing the organization that is recognizing the person for review activity, such as a publisher, association, or funder.
Material About Standard From Consortia Advancing Standards in Research Administration Information (CASRAI)
See Also: The Future of Peer Review (via BioMed Central Blog)
New blog post by Stephanie Harriman, Medical Editor at BioMed Central