Understanding the role of open peer review and dynamic academic articles

Authors’ reply to “Problems with natural selection of academic papers”


We welcome the commentary by L. Egghe (Scientometrics, this issue) stimulating discussion on our recent article “Natural selection of academic papers” (NSAP) (Scientometrics, 85(2):553–559, 2010) that focuses on an important modern issue at the heart of the scientific enterprise—the open and continuous evaluation and evolution of research. We are also grateful to the editor of Scientometrics for giving us the opportunity to respond to some of the arguments by L. Egghe that we believe are inaccurate or require further comment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. 1.

    Egghe, L. Problems with “natural selection of academic papers”. Scientometrics. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0395-9.

  2. 2.

    Perakakis, P., Taylor, M., Mazza, M., & Trachana, V. (2010). Natural selection of academic papers. Scientometrics, 85(2), 553–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Perakakis, P., Taylor, M., Mazza, M., & Trachana, V. (2010). The roads to open access. In: World Social Science Report 2010 ( pp. 307–309). UNESCO

  4. 4.

    Swan, A., & Brown, S. (2004). Authors and open access publishing. Learned Publishing, 17(3), 219–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Harnad, S., Brody, T., Vallières, F., Carr, L., Hitchcock, S., Gingras, Y. et al. (2008). The access/impact problem and the green and gold roads to open access: An update. Serials Review, 34(1), 36–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Xia, J. (2007). Disciplinary repositories in the social sciences. In: ASLIB Proceedings New Information Perspectives (Vol. 59, pp. 528–538). London: Aslib.

  7. 7.

    Chan, L., & Costa, S. (2005). Participation in the global knowledge commons: Challenges and opportunities for research dissemination in developing countries. New Library World, 106(3/4), 141–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Evans, J. A., & Reimer, J. (2009). Open access and global participation in science. Science, 323(5917), 1025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Barcinski, M. A. (2003). Disruption to science in developing countries. Nature, 423(6939), 480–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Kirsop, B., & Chan, L. (2005). Transforming access to research literature for developing countries. Serials Review, 31(4), 246–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Habib, A. (2010). Challenging the international academic publishing industry. In: World Social Science Report 2010. UNESCO, p. 311.

  12. 12.

    Taylor, M., Perakakis, P., & Trachana, V. (2008). The siege of science. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics(ESEP), 8(1), 17–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Moed, H.F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Pub.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal, 314(7079), 497.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Scully, C., & Lodge, H. (2005). Impact factors and their significance; overrated or misused?. British Dental Journal, 198(7), 391–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Gura, T. (2002). Scientific publishing: Peer review, unmasked. Nature, 416(6878), 258–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Godlee, F. (2002). Making reviewers visible. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 287(21), 2762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Wilson, R. (2006). ‘Referee factor’ would reward a vital contribution. Nature, 441(7095), 812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Raymond, E. S. (1999). The Cathedral & the Bazaar. Sebastapol: O’Reilly (in press).

  20. 20.

    Lehmann, S., Jackson, A., & Lautrup, B. (2005). Life, death and preferential attachment. Europhysics Letters, 69, 298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Mandavilli, A. (2011). Trial by twitter. Nature, 469, 286–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pandelis Perakakis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Perakakis, P., Taylor, M., Mazza, M.G. et al. Understanding the role of open peer review and dynamic academic articles. Scientometrics 88, 669–673 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0402-1

Download citation


  • Academic publishing
  • Open peer review