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
- Annual Report: 2021 in reviewon August 18, 2022 at 7:51 am
A look back on eLife’s efforts to transform research communication in 2021, notably with our new ‘publish, then review’ model and ongoing work to improve technology and research culture.
- Uttaranchal University launches Open Access Gateway that allows faculty to increase reach of their researchon August 8, 2022 at 12:50 am
Uttarakhand Dehradun [India] August 8 ANINewsVoir The Uttaranchal University UU recently launched a Gateway that gives all UU faculty members the opportunity to publish their research as open access a ...
- A Stimulating Debate on Consciousness and the Brainon July 26, 2022 at 2:27 pm
Now, what could be a more enthralling topic? This took place in the open-peer-review journal, Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Not only are the scientists discussing existing theories of ...
- The peer review system is broken. We asked academics how to fix iton July 24, 2022 at 6:02 pm
The suggestions for journals, publishers and universities show there is plenty to be done to make peer review more accountable, fair and inclusive. We have summarised our full fin ...
- The peer review system is broken. We asked academics how to fix iton July 24, 2022 at 5:51 pm
Some repondents pointed to a growing movement towards more open peer review processes, which may create a more human and transparent approach to reviewing. For example, Royal Society Open Science ...
- The peer review system is broken. We asked academics how to fix iton July 24, 2022 at 5:00 pm
This provides space for honesty, but can also make the process less open and accountable. The opacity may also suppress discussion, protect biases, and decrease the quality of the reviews.
- Understanding the peer review processon July 14, 2022 at 11:47 am
Open peer This type of peer review is the most confrontational as it allows both sides to know the identity of each other. Authors know who is reviewing their manuscript and vice versa. If the ...
- Pros and cons of open peer reviewon December 4, 2021 at 12:09 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 July 13, 2021 at 3:22 pm
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 ...
- Instructions for peer reviewerson April 4, 2020 at 10:53 am
Peer review is the foundation of quality in research for both books and journals, ensuring that published research is rigorous and ethical. Peer reviewers can access a number of resources to assist ...
via Bing News