THE process by which academics check the work of their colleagues before it goes to print—peer review, in the argot—is nearly as old as scientific publishing itself. But like every human endeavour, it is fraught with human frailties and the process can be hijacked in a variety of ways.
As a result, and as with many other aspects of publishing, peer review is the subject of much experimentation. One upstart publisher is trying to codify good behaviour.
Peer review’s current incarnation took shape in the middle of the 20th century: authors submit a manuscript to a publisher, who then seeks out academics suitable to comment on it; they then submit critiques anonymously to the authors, who amend the work to reflect the critiques. The system nearly works. The reasons for anonymity are manifold, but that information asymmetry often causes trouble, with reviewers shooting down rivals’ work, pinching ideas, or just plain dragging their feet (overwhelmingly, reviewing is unpaid).
There are a few green shoots of innovation in the field, though. One idea is to remove the veil and carry out peer review publicly: reviewers’ identities and their reports are published online for all to see. Proponents reckon this provides incentives for both honesty and courtesy. Faculty of 1000, an online biology and medicine publisher, has taken this tack with F1000 Research, its flagship journal.
Indeed it is taking the idea further. Michael Markie, an associate publisher for F1000 Research, believes that a commitment to change must also come from authors and reviewers, not just journal editors and publishers. Mr Markie was a co-author of a paper—itself the subject of fervent open peer-review—which proposed a kind of oath and a set of guidelines to encourage even-handed and helpful behaviours for reviewers. The oath reads
Principle 1: I will sign my name to my review
Principle 2: I will review with integrity
Principle 3: I will treat the review as a discourse with you; in particular, I will provide constructive criticism
Principle 4: I will be an ambassador for the practice of open science
Faculty of 1000 has begun to encourage reviewers to cite the oath in their reports, in the hope that other publishers will adopt the practice as well. Already, Pensoft Publishers and the Journal of Open Research Software are following suit.
The Latest on: Open peer review
via Google News
The Latest on: Open peer review
- New styrene production method improves stability, dehydrogenation activityon July 7, 2022 at 6:19 am
Styrene, the chemical used to make polymers and resins used in plastic, disposable containers, latex, synthetic rubber, insulation and more, is ubiquitous to everyday life. Given its prevalence and ...
- Uhuru commissions Panel of Eminent Persons for County Peer Review Mechanismon July 4, 2022 at 10:24 am
President Uhuru Kenyatta has commissioned a Panel of Eminent Persons for the County Peer Review Mechanism (CPRM) for the next three years.
- Open access publisher Hindawi makes detailed publishing metrics publicly availableon June 23, 2022 at 6:15 pm
Hindawi Limited announces the launch of new journal reports, which provide unprecedented detail about the underlying services of Hindawi's journals. Hindawi's journal reports showcase a wide range of ...
- Peer review: Can this critical step in the publication of science research be kinder?on June 21, 2022 at 11:28 am
Peer review is the least worst system for assessing the merit of ... We are a team of editors of an open-access Canadian kidney journal, the Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease. When we ...
- Peer Review of Scientific Studies: A Critical Reviewon June 16, 2022 at 1:58 pm
In short, there are no minimum standards, and peer review depends on the publication. With the advent of the internet, Open Access Scientific Journals have proliferated with no financial barriers ...
- Community Newsletter: Open-data fails, decoding GABA reuptake, peer reviewer duelson June 12, 2022 at 4:50 am
Others, including Daniel Kleinman, research scientist at Haskings Laboratories at Yale University, called on reviewers to push authors toward better open-data practices ... this week with the mental ...
- Pros and cons of open peer reviewon May 22, 2022 at 10:39 am
Advocates of open review argue that openness will force ... The BMJ claims that, since it opened up its peer-review process, only a small percentage (about 2%) of referees have refused to review ...
- Peer Reviewon January 14, 2022 at 12:41 am
anonymized peer-review and open peer review. The system has been exhaustively studied, reported on, and assessed -- both positively and negatively. Nature Portfolio journals' position on the value ...
- Cambridge Prismson October 1, 2021 at 5:52 pm
All journals in the series are fully open access and operate under open peer review in full transparency to further accelerate discovery.
- peer reviewon September 19, 2016 at 4:24 am
The reaction to that paper both catalyzed and revealed the power of more open peer review — a fast, post-publication peer review by the wider I lack time to do this justice, but thought it ...
via Bing News