Tag: The Future Of Peer Review

Rethink peer review to make it sustainable

Photograph of a sheet of paper on which a light bulb with a question mark inside is sketched in pencil. On the left side of the drawing is a pencil and an eraser.

A recently published article discusses the need for a profound overhaul of peer review, as the current model proves to be no longer sustainable. Journal editors have difficulties finding reviewers willing to evaluate submitted articles, researchers discuss greater recognition or even remuneration to act as reviewers. Among the numerous proposed alternatives, the opening of peer review is presented as the most feasible alternative. Read More →

Preprint review should be part of doctoral and postdoctoral training programs

Photograph of a graduating student wearing cap and gown from the back.

Considering the significant growth of preprints in scholarly communication, as well as the emergence of preprint servers in all areas of knowledge, Richard Sever, assistant director of CSHL Press, proposes that (post-publication) evaluation of preprints be used to complement doctoral and postdoctoral training at academic institutions. Read More →

Funders support use of reviewed preprints in research assessment [Originally published by eLife in December/2022]

eLife logo

Funders and other research organisations are embracing reviewed preprints as an alternative way to assess researchers, and call on others to do the same. Read More →

eLife ends accept/reject decisions following peer review [Originally published by eLife in October/2022]

eLife logo

eLife will emphasise the public peer review of preprints, restoring author autonomy and promoting the assessment of scientists based on what, not where, they publish. Read More →

PLOS reports on publishing Peer Review History

Photograph of a branch of small purple flowers that grew between rocks.

PLOS, a pioneer of open access publishing in the years 2000, reports the results of its open peer review policy implemented in 2019. Published Peer Review History is the result of the reviewer’s choice to sign their peer review and the author’s choice to publish the Peer Review History, which consists of several documents. Read More →

Are preprints a problem? 5 ways to improve the quality and credibility of preprints [Originally published in the LSE Impact blog in September/2020]

Preprints are research reports have that have not yet been peer reviewed and accepted for publication. They have increased rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, high profile discredited studies have led to concerns that speed has been prioritized over the quality and credibility of evidence. Joeri Tijdink, Mario Malicki, Lex Bouter and Gowri Gopalakrishna argue that all stakeholders of the science system have a responsibility in improving the quality and credibility of pre-prints. They outline 5 steps by which this can be achieved. Read More →

Unlock ways to share peer review data

Peer review is the intrinsic process of scientific research. However, there are few systematic studies on this procedure, and it is not easy to gain access to management information administered by publishers. The PEERE project, funded by the European Community, would make this data available as a public good. Read More →

Potential advantages and disadvantages in the publication of reviews

Publishing peer reviews is a growing trend in scholarly communication, for the sake of transparency and as a practice associated to open science. There are, however, advantages and disadvantages that should be considered by journal editors when adopting this peer review modality. Read More →

Open peer review: Publishing peer review reports influences referee behavior?

A pilot study was conducted with five Elsevier journals in different areas of knowledge on the effects of publishing peer review reports of 9,220 articles submitted between 2010 and 2017. The main findings of the study suggest that the publication of reviews does not influence or compromise the peer review work. The authors were unable to detect any significant effect on the readiness to perform the evaluation, content and outcome of the recommendations, nor on the time taken to perform the evaluation. However, only 8.1% of the referees agreed to disclose their identity as authors of the review reports. Read More →

From star peer reviewers to ghost peer reviewers – Part II

Open reviews and the emergence of platforms such as Publons, which publish these activities and integrate them into other academic tasks, open the possibility of the emergence of a new aspect of bibliometrics and certainly a new and prestigious market. Read More →

From star peer reviewers to ghost peer reviewers – Part I

Peer review is an integral part of scholarly publishing and is carried out globally by most researchers in developed countries. To what extent researchers from emerging countries participate and which measures of their performance are reported in the result of the largest survey on peer review conducted so far. This note is the first of two on the subject. Read More →

Scientific Publishing Innovations: the Future of Journals and Peer Review

On the first day of SciELO 20 Years Week, during the WG5 – Scientific Publishing Innovations and the Future of Peer Review and Journals, new methodologies for opening the publishing process using preprints servers were discussed throughout the day before an audience of more than 50 people and presentations of six experts. Text available only in Spanish. Read More →

Challenges in peer review of scientific articles on Administration in Brazil

Sharing their experiences as authors, reviewers and editors of scientific journals, Sandro Cabral and Marcelo de Souza Bispo reflect on the challenges of the article evaluation process, criticize the current system that favors productivism, overloading the reviewers, and draws attention on the need to train good reviewers in PhD courses in Brazil. Read More →

What do Spanish researchers think about Open Peer Review?

In February 2018, the Spanish Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas launched a survey to know the habits, preferences and opinions of its researchers when performing an evaluation and being subjected to open peer review, with the aim of contributing to the international debate on science assessment and possible ways of improvement. Fifty-four percent of respondents are satisfied with the dominant peer review system and fifty percent agree to open the reviewers’ identity as it helps reduce conflicts of interest. Read More →

What does a new approach mean (for journals, research councils)?

Preprints are a development underway in science communication and publishing. For journals, this has consequences. They may adopt a passive role, an opposing stance, or an encouraging, stimulating role, and see it as an opportunity, placing their journal in the midst of the preprint development. These are issues to be discussed in detail at the SciELO 20 Years Conference in September 2018. Read More →