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
- IOP Publishing unveils new open access environmental journal serieson November 24, 2020 at 7:38 am
IOP Publishing (IOPP) is launching a suite of new open access (OA) environmental journals, marking the creation of the Environmental Research series.
- England’s three Covid ‘tsars’ in spotlight over case to win judicial reviewon November 21, 2020 at 2:38 pm
On 7 May, when the country was still in its first national lockdown and the crisis over shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) was its height, a Tory peer called Dido Harding was thrust ...
- Moderna CMO on peer review process for new Covid-19 vaccineon November 16, 2020 at 3:53 pm
Dr. Tal Zaks commented on the peer review process Moderna's Covid-19 vaccine will undergo: "We are going to have the strongest peer review anybody could expect, which is a panel of experts looking ...
- First published peer reviews of the WHO solidarity trialson November 11, 2020 at 9:00 pm
Forthcoming COVID-19 research in Rapid Reviews: adjuvants could improve vaccine efficiency; what are the risks of reinfection; understanding autophagy could inspire new antivirals.
- Delete offensive language? Change recommendations? Some editors say it’s OK to alter peer reviewson November 2, 2020 at 10:41 pm
and psychology on when they think altering peer-review reports is justified. Published as a preprint earlier this year at the Open Science Framework and now under review at eLife, the survey ...
- Edit reviews without permission? Some journal editors say it's OKon October 29, 2020 at 5:00 pm
With colleagues, they've now surveyed 322 editors at high-impact journals across ecology, economics, medicine, physics, and psychology on when they think altering peer-review reports is justified.
- Category: Peer Reviewon October 24, 2020 at 5:01 pm
(O’Malley) He is not the first to suggest that peer review might be re-conceived in a digital context. Kathleen Fitzpatrick, who has been a leader in exploring “open peer review,” has posted a ...
- RSC launches transparent peer reviewon March 25, 2020 at 6:00 am
RSC Chemical Biology has become the first Royal Society of Chemistry journal to adopt transparent peer review – meaning that reviewers’ comments can be read publically. The move is part of our ...
- PeerJ Feedbackon August 18, 2017 at 8:37 am
They published very quickly and the quality of the peer review was excellent. Actually I have already recommended PeerJ to several colleagues of mine. PeerJ Author I would recommend PeerJ over PLOS ...
- British Medical Journal Open (BMJ Open)on September 17, 2015 at 2:54 am
Publishing procedures are built around fully open peer review and continuous publication, publishing research online as soon as the article is ready. BMJ Open aims to promote transparency in the ...
via Bing News