open science awareness
Peer review
Online training from the Aix-Marseille University libraries
Peer review
2. open peer review
1. Definition
3. HRS4R
4. DORA
Contents
6. Quiz
5. CoARA
Peer review
Peer review
Peer review: definition
The term ‘peer review’ (peer reviewing, en français "évaluation par les pairs") has many synonyms.
review
what
validation
proofreading
assessment
examination
verification
experts
proofreaders
peers
who
assessors
reader-referees
referees
by peers
examiners
rapporteurs
reviewers
Peer review
What is peer review of a scientific paper?
Peer review of a manuscript submitted to a scientific journal involves its thorough examination by scientists in the relevant field.
Peer review ensures the reliability of the publication.
WHY
This review covers all components of the manuscript in relation to scientific methods, knowledge and practices in the field: research context, hypothesis, materials and methods (statistics), results (datasets), interpretation of these results and implications, references.
HOW
Source : Comprendre les modèles d’évaluation par les pairs d’un article scientifique, Coop-IST
Peer review
For an open peer review
Thanks to open science, peer review is becoming more transparent and reliable.
THE LIMITS OF THE TRADITIONAL MODEL
TOWARDS AN OPEN PEER REVIEW
DIFFERENT EVALUATION MODELS
Depending on the model used, peer review may have shortcomings:
- reviewers who are competitors/partners of the authors,
- reviewers whose research topics are too far removed from the article being reviewed, etc.
The reliability of the review is therefore not always guaranteed.
step 1
With open science, open peer review practices are developing:
- the names of reviewers are made public,
- preprints are published and then evaluated,
- and the process is transparent, allowing all users to comment on the article.
These practices lead to greater reliability.
Peer review can take several forms, depending on four criteria:
- the visibility of reviewers;
- their interactions with authors and/or editors;
- the publication of the review process;
- and the publication of comments.
Duis autem vel eum iriure dolor in hendrerit in
+info
Source : A Standard Taxonoym for Peer Review, STM, 2020
+ info
European label « Human Resources Strategy for Researchers »
Peer review
label européen
amU incorporates peer review into its open science strategy. Labels and declarations consolidate this process.
In April 2021, Aix-Marseille University was awarded the European label ‘Human Resources Strategy for Researchers’, better known by the acronym HRS4R.
Our university thus joins some 600 European organisations that have committed to applying the principles set out in
- the European Charter for Researchers and
- the Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers.
As part of the HRS4R project, measures to promote the deployment of open science are being implemented at Aix-Marseille University.
Peer review
DORA : San Francisco Declaration
Since February 2022, Aix-Marseille University has been a signatory to the San Francisco Declaration, better known by its acronym DORA (Declaration on Research Assessment). The international DORA initiative recognises the need to improve methods for evaluating research outcomes.The principles of the declaration are based on three key points:
The need to end the use of indicators based on journal reputation (impact factor) for funding, appointments and promotions.
An assessment based on the intrinsic value of the research, rather than on the journal in which it is published.
Better exploitation of the possibilities offered by online publishing, freeing itself from the constraints of traditional publishing and offering appropriate metrics.
CoARA Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment
Peer review
Coalition to change research evaluation Signed by Aix-Marseille University in November 2022
03
04
01
02
Abandon inappropriate uses in research evaluation of metrics based on journals and publications, particularly those of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) and the h-index.
Base research evaluation primarily on qualitative assessment, whereby peer review must be supported by the responsible use of quantitative indicators.
Recognising the diversity of contributions and careers in research.
Avoid using research organisation rankings in research evaluation.
Peer review
Now it's your turn!
Test your knowledge of peer review.
Start
Peer review
1/5
The editor alone is responsible for the decision to publish a manuscript.
FALSE
TRUE
Peer review
Correct
Manuscripts submitted to the journal by corresponding authors are reviewed by members (editors, editorial members) of the editorial board; at this stage, half are rejected (this varies depending on the journal). Each accepted manuscript is assigned to an editor who seeks reviewers from among the authors of other articles. Each reviewer writes an evaluation form. Most journals have guidelines for reviewers. If conflicting opinions are produced, the editor may seek another person. The editor reviews these opinions. They produce a summary and a decision, which the journal sends by email to the author along with the reviewers' reports: this may be a rejection or a request for major or minor revisions. The revised and accepted manuscript is called a postprint (Accepted Author Manuscript, AAM).
Find out more: Coop-ist (Déroulement habituel d’une revue scientifique : évaluer puis publier)
Continue
Peer review
2/5
What proposals were made in the DORA declaration to improve methods for evaluating research outcomes?
Drag the correct answers to the right-hand column.
Take into account the value of all research work, including datasets
Promoting research based on the principles of open science
Strengthening the impact factor
Propose new metrics unrelated to the journal
Evaluating research on its intrinsic value
Rebuild the evaluation based on the journal's reputation
Decoupling the links between evaluation and open science
Propose a fairer individual assessment of researchers
continue
solution
Peer review
3/5
What are the characteristics of open peer review?
- Identifiable proofreaders - Publication of the preprint, followed by evaluation, then final version - Possible comments
- Anonymous reviewers - Publication of the final version only - Unable to comment on the published article
- Anonymous reviewers - Publication of the preprint, followed by evaluation, then final version - Unable to comment on the published article
- Identifiable proofreaders - Publication of the final version only - Possible comments
Peer review
Correct
Open peer review models have several characteristics: - Transparency of the identity of those involved: reviewers are identifiable, which avoids the risk of conflicts of interest that could influence an evaluation. Openness also concerns inclusivity, with greater parity and diversity among reviewers. - Openness of the process: publication follows a different timeline from the traditional model. Thus, open publication of the preprint (manuscript awaiting evaluation) is encouraged on the journal's website, an open archive (such as HAL or ArXiv), or a dedicated platform. The preprint is then evaluated before the final version is published. This makes the entire evaluation process transparent. - Openness of reception: the possibility of publishing public comments on the final version of the article encourages scientific discussion. Post-publication comments are also made on social networks or on dedicated independent platforms (such as PubPeer). This is another form of open peer review.
Continue
Peer review
4/5
What does the impact factor measure?
The reputation of the author or authors of the article, based on the number of citations of their previous publications
The reputation of the journal in which the article was published in relation to other journals in the same field of study
The scientific quality of the research published in the article
The position occupied by the journal publisher in the scientific publishing market based on subscription costs
Peer review
Correct
The impact factor measures the number of citations of articles in a given journal. It therefore reflects the reputation of a scientific journal, but does not provide any indication of the quality of its publications. This indicator cannot therefore be used on its own to gauge the interest of an article.
Find out more: Coop-ist (Le facteur d’impact et ses indicateurs associés pour évaluer la notoriété d’une revue) La veille pour vos informations scientifiques, techniques et stratégiques de l'INIST (Le facteur d’impact et ses indicateurs associés pour évaluer la notoriété d’une revue)
Continue
Peer review
5/5
The San Francisco Declaration (DORA, 2022) reaffirms the need to take into account the reputation of the journal (impact factor) for research funding and researcher appointments.
TRUE
FALSE
Peer review
Correct
This is incorrect. The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) emphasises the need to improve the way research results are assessed in order to move beyond widely used metrics (e.g. journal impact factor).
Finish
Open Science awareness
Training course
VI. Citizen and participatory sciences
IV. Research data
II. Introduction
VIII. Conclusion
I. Preamble
V. Support for bibliodiversity
VII. Peer review
III. Disseminating publications
continue
Peer review
False !
Try again!
New try
Here are the correct answers
Take into account the value of all research work, including datasets
Evaluating research on its intrinsic value
Propose a fairer individual assessment of researchers
Promoting research based on the principles of open science
Propose new metrics unrelated to the journal
Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers
The Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers (section 2, page 25) aims to improve recruitment by making selection procedures more equitable and transparent. It promotes open recruitment based on criteria related to professional skills, avoiding any form of direct or indirect discrimination.
Impact factor
The impact factor (IF), en français facteur d’impact (FI), is currently the most widely used indicator of journal reputation for evaluating publications. Find out more on Coop-IST.
European Charter for Researchers
The 40 principles of the European Charter for Researchers (section 1, page 10) define, in particular, the rights, duties and commitments of researchers in the performance of their research and teaching duties and in the development of their careers.
EN - 2025-2026 - SO VII. Peer review
SCD
Created on August 26, 2025
Start designing with a free template
Discover more than 1500 professional designs like these:
View
Essential Learning Unit
View
Akihabara Learning Unit
View
Genial learning unit
View
History Learning Unit
View
Primary Unit Plan
View
Vibrant Learning Unit
View
Art learning unit
Explore all templates
Transcript
open science awareness
Peer review
Online training from the Aix-Marseille University libraries
Peer review
2. open peer review
1. Definition
3. HRS4R
4. DORA
Contents
6. Quiz
5. CoARA
Peer review
Peer review
Peer review: definition
The term ‘peer review’ (peer reviewing, en français "évaluation par les pairs") has many synonyms.
review
what
validation
proofreading
assessment
examination
verification
experts
proofreaders
peers
who
assessors
reader-referees
referees
by peers
examiners
rapporteurs
reviewers
Peer review
What is peer review of a scientific paper?
Peer review of a manuscript submitted to a scientific journal involves its thorough examination by scientists in the relevant field.
Peer review ensures the reliability of the publication.
WHY
This review covers all components of the manuscript in relation to scientific methods, knowledge and practices in the field: research context, hypothesis, materials and methods (statistics), results (datasets), interpretation of these results and implications, references.
HOW
Source : Comprendre les modèles d’évaluation par les pairs d’un article scientifique, Coop-IST
Peer review
For an open peer review
Thanks to open science, peer review is becoming more transparent and reliable.
THE LIMITS OF THE TRADITIONAL MODEL
TOWARDS AN OPEN PEER REVIEW
DIFFERENT EVALUATION MODELS
Depending on the model used, peer review may have shortcomings:
- reviewers who are competitors/partners of the authors,
- reviewers whose research topics are too far removed from the article being reviewed, etc.
The reliability of the review is therefore not always guaranteed.step 1
With open science, open peer review practices are developing:
- the names of reviewers are made public,
- preprints are published and then evaluated,
- and the process is transparent, allowing all users to comment on the article.
These practices lead to greater reliability.Peer review can take several forms, depending on four criteria:
Duis autem vel eum iriure dolor in hendrerit in
+info
Source : A Standard Taxonoym for Peer Review, STM, 2020
+ info
European label « Human Resources Strategy for Researchers »
Peer review
label européen
amU incorporates peer review into its open science strategy. Labels and declarations consolidate this process.
In April 2021, Aix-Marseille University was awarded the European label ‘Human Resources Strategy for Researchers’, better known by the acronym HRS4R.
Our university thus joins some 600 European organisations that have committed to applying the principles set out in
As part of the HRS4R project, measures to promote the deployment of open science are being implemented at Aix-Marseille University.
Peer review
DORA : San Francisco Declaration
Since February 2022, Aix-Marseille University has been a signatory to the San Francisco Declaration, better known by its acronym DORA (Declaration on Research Assessment). The international DORA initiative recognises the need to improve methods for evaluating research outcomes.The principles of the declaration are based on three key points:
The need to end the use of indicators based on journal reputation (impact factor) for funding, appointments and promotions.
An assessment based on the intrinsic value of the research, rather than on the journal in which it is published.
Better exploitation of the possibilities offered by online publishing, freeing itself from the constraints of traditional publishing and offering appropriate metrics.
CoARA Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment
Peer review
Coalition to change research evaluation Signed by Aix-Marseille University in November 2022
03
04
01
02
Abandon inappropriate uses in research evaluation of metrics based on journals and publications, particularly those of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) and the h-index.
Base research evaluation primarily on qualitative assessment, whereby peer review must be supported by the responsible use of quantitative indicators.
Recognising the diversity of contributions and careers in research.
Avoid using research organisation rankings in research evaluation.
Peer review
Now it's your turn!
Test your knowledge of peer review.
Start
Peer review
1/5
The editor alone is responsible for the decision to publish a manuscript.
FALSE
TRUE
Peer review
Correct
Manuscripts submitted to the journal by corresponding authors are reviewed by members (editors, editorial members) of the editorial board; at this stage, half are rejected (this varies depending on the journal). Each accepted manuscript is assigned to an editor who seeks reviewers from among the authors of other articles. Each reviewer writes an evaluation form. Most journals have guidelines for reviewers. If conflicting opinions are produced, the editor may seek another person. The editor reviews these opinions. They produce a summary and a decision, which the journal sends by email to the author along with the reviewers' reports: this may be a rejection or a request for major or minor revisions. The revised and accepted manuscript is called a postprint (Accepted Author Manuscript, AAM).
Find out more: Coop-ist (Déroulement habituel d’une revue scientifique : évaluer puis publier)
Continue
Peer review
2/5
What proposals were made in the DORA declaration to improve methods for evaluating research outcomes?
Drag the correct answers to the right-hand column.
Take into account the value of all research work, including datasets
Promoting research based on the principles of open science
Strengthening the impact factor
Propose new metrics unrelated to the journal
Evaluating research on its intrinsic value
Rebuild the evaluation based on the journal's reputation
Decoupling the links between evaluation and open science
Propose a fairer individual assessment of researchers
continue
solution
Peer review
3/5
What are the characteristics of open peer review?
- Identifiable proofreaders - Publication of the preprint, followed by evaluation, then final version - Possible comments
- Anonymous reviewers - Publication of the final version only - Unable to comment on the published article
- Anonymous reviewers - Publication of the preprint, followed by evaluation, then final version - Unable to comment on the published article
- Identifiable proofreaders - Publication of the final version only - Possible comments
Peer review
Correct
Open peer review models have several characteristics: - Transparency of the identity of those involved: reviewers are identifiable, which avoids the risk of conflicts of interest that could influence an evaluation. Openness also concerns inclusivity, with greater parity and diversity among reviewers. - Openness of the process: publication follows a different timeline from the traditional model. Thus, open publication of the preprint (manuscript awaiting evaluation) is encouraged on the journal's website, an open archive (such as HAL or ArXiv), or a dedicated platform. The preprint is then evaluated before the final version is published. This makes the entire evaluation process transparent. - Openness of reception: the possibility of publishing public comments on the final version of the article encourages scientific discussion. Post-publication comments are also made on social networks or on dedicated independent platforms (such as PubPeer). This is another form of open peer review.
Continue
Peer review
4/5
What does the impact factor measure?
The reputation of the author or authors of the article, based on the number of citations of their previous publications
The reputation of the journal in which the article was published in relation to other journals in the same field of study
The scientific quality of the research published in the article
The position occupied by the journal publisher in the scientific publishing market based on subscription costs
Peer review
Correct
The impact factor measures the number of citations of articles in a given journal. It therefore reflects the reputation of a scientific journal, but does not provide any indication of the quality of its publications. This indicator cannot therefore be used on its own to gauge the interest of an article.
Find out more: Coop-ist (Le facteur d’impact et ses indicateurs associés pour évaluer la notoriété d’une revue) La veille pour vos informations scientifiques, techniques et stratégiques de l'INIST (Le facteur d’impact et ses indicateurs associés pour évaluer la notoriété d’une revue)
Continue
Peer review
5/5
The San Francisco Declaration (DORA, 2022) reaffirms the need to take into account the reputation of the journal (impact factor) for research funding and researcher appointments.
TRUE
FALSE
Peer review
Correct
This is incorrect. The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) emphasises the need to improve the way research results are assessed in order to move beyond widely used metrics (e.g. journal impact factor).
Finish
Open Science awareness
Training course
VI. Citizen and participatory sciences
IV. Research data
II. Introduction
VIII. Conclusion
I. Preamble
V. Support for bibliodiversity
VII. Peer review
III. Disseminating publications
continue
Peer review
False !
Try again!
New try
Here are the correct answers
Take into account the value of all research work, including datasets
Evaluating research on its intrinsic value
Propose a fairer individual assessment of researchers
Promoting research based on the principles of open science
Propose new metrics unrelated to the journal
Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers
The Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers (section 2, page 25) aims to improve recruitment by making selection procedures more equitable and transparent. It promotes open recruitment based on criteria related to professional skills, avoiding any form of direct or indirect discrimination.
Impact factor
The impact factor (IF), en français facteur d’impact (FI), is currently the most widely used indicator of journal reputation for evaluating publications. Find out more on Coop-IST.
European Charter for Researchers
The 40 principles of the European Charter for Researchers (section 1, page 10) define, in particular, the rights, duties and commitments of researchers in the performance of their research and teaching duties and in the development of their careers.