Open peer review and its rhythms | Martin Paul Eve | Professor of Literature, Technology and Publishing

"While there’s much, content-wise, in the book on which I might remark, I wanted, instead, to take a few minutes to reflect on the process of “open peer review” here and how it led me to act. I also want to draw attention to the ways that this was different to more conventional review modes.

First, it’s abundantly clear how many more of the (existing) comments of others are embedded early in the manuscript. That is: it seems, to me, that many more people make remarks early in the book’s flow. Perhaps this is always the case with peer review of books and, as reviewers’ attentions wander, you get fewer remarks on later portions. This might be either because the reviewers are sold on what you are saying or because they have become tired of reading by that point! That said, because these reviews are unfolding in real-time between different actors, it could be simply because other reviewers were only part-way through and will return. Certainly, I worked through it in two sessions.

Second, seeing the remarks of other commentators altered my flow of reading and thought. There’s good evidence that online paratextual commentaries affect how we read and understand articles themselves. The same goes for open peer-review contexts. I was influenced by the thoughts that others had had, as I read.

Third, because of the commenting format of the manuscript, I read this book at my computer. ..."