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
- Designing digital services during the Coronavirus pandemic - some adviceon March 23, 2020 at 6:48 am
Working in the open will encourage people to peer review and for feedback to be given. Not only that, but it will allow teams to stand a better chance of not duplicating work being done elsewhere.
- Covid-19 is reshaping the world of bioscience publishingon March 23, 2020 at 1:48 am
Journals of widely varying quality have proliferated, and are increasingly available only online. Access only by subscribers is being challenged by open-access platforms. The approach to peer review, ...
- Quantification and visualisation methods of data-driven chronic care delivery pathways: protocol for a systematic review and content analysison March 19, 2020 at 9:35 pm
Ethical approval is not required for this review. Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations. PROSPERO registration number CRD42019140494. This is an open ...
- Open Orphan: Flu vaccine data showcased in peer reviewed articleon March 16, 2020 at 12:41 am
FLU-v has been developed by Imutex, 49%-owned by Open Orphan unit hVIVO, as the first 'universal', broad-spectrum influenza ... of symptoms in late-stage studies and together with the highly ...
- Report: Open Source Vulnerabilities Rampant in Popular Projectson March 12, 2020 at 12:34 pm
It also reviews the most common CWEs, or common weakness enumerations ... WhiteSource aggregated its research results from the National Vulnerability Database (NVD), dozens of security advisories, ...
- Peer Reviewed: Wacław Zimpel Interviews James Holden... And Vice Versaon March 10, 2020 at 2:56 am
It is just happening if you are open for that. But I am also wondering if getting to those trance states ... If you enjoy The Quietus, please consider supporting what we do with a one-off or regular ...
- Google's DeepMind just shared AI-generated predictions about the coronavirus that could help researchers stem the global outbreakon March 5, 2020 at 2:46 pm
A stylized bird with an open mouth, tweeting ... in both in peer-reviewed journals and on pre-print servers without peer review, since that process can take months. "We emphasise that these ...
- Interdisciplinary Peer Mentorship: An Innovative Strategy to Enhance Writing Competencyon March 5, 2020 at 10:30 am
At an open table in a quiet room, tutors critiqued the writing of one student while the ... Well-structured class assignments, supported by “low personal risk” interventions, such as small group ...
- Open peer-review platform for COVID-19 preprintson March 3, 2020 at 2:14 am
Outbreak Science, San Juan, Puerto Rico. The public call for rapid sharing of research data relevant to the COVID-19 outbreak (see go.nature.com/2t1lyp6) is driving an unprecedented surge in ...
- Open peer-review platform for COVID-19 preprintson March 3, 2020 at 2:12 am
This is an open-source platform for rapid review of preprints related to emerging outbreaks (see https://outbreaksci.prereview.org). These reviews comprise responses to short, yes-or-no questions ...
via Bing News