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
- Pros and cons of open peer reviewon November 16, 2019 at 4:48 pm
We believe that there are several strong arguments against open review. For one thing, it may lead to serious problems in finding appropriate referees. The BMJ claims that, since it opened up its peer ...
- Into the great wide open – enlightened peer reviewon September 19, 2019 at 7:38 am
Do you continue with the same peer review process or you do something different? At Cambridge University Press, we are thrilled to announce the launch of a ground-breaking innovative journal, ...
- Peer review futures: Balancing efficiency and transparency to crack the issues in peer reviewon September 18, 2019 at 5:00 pm
Our system of optional open peer review at PeerJ is somewhat unique – both the author and the reviewer still maintain a choice. At this moment in time, where changes are happening everywhere in ...
- Michael Markie: OPEN SESAME – Let’s Free Peer Review and the Sharing of Researchon August 12, 2019 at 6:18 pm
One way to achieve a more complementary way of sharing research would be to open up elements of the publication process and take advantage of the digital age. With today’s technology we can start to ...
- Data analysis, open access could improve peer-review processon June 26, 2019 at 8:17 am
Sharing peer-review data could help journals stamp out fraud, inefficiency and systemic bias in academic publishing. In fact, there’s a case to be made that open peer review — in which the content of ...
- Published Peer Review (community comments)on June 20, 2019 at 9:07 am
In February, we asked researchers about the biggest change they hope to see in Open Science. Nearly 3,000 of you weighed in. Here’s what you had to say… In May, we introduced published peer review ...
- Rare trial of open peer review allays common concernson February 15, 2019 at 5:07 am
A rare analysis of open peer review — in which reviews are posted alongside published papers — has overturned some common conceptions about the practice: notably, that it doesn’t put the reviewers off ...
- Clarivate Analytics Expands Transparent Peer Review Pilot with Wiley to New Titleson January 23, 2019 at 2:46 am
Clarivate companies - Publons, the world's largest peer review platform and ScholarOne, the leading manuscript submission system - launched the scholarly industry's first scalable open peer review ...
- Open peer review: bringing transparency, accountability, and inclusivity to the peer review processon September 13, 2017 at 3:01 am
Figure 1: Distribution of OPR traits amongst definitions. Source: Ross-Hellauer, T. (2017) “What is open peer review? A systematic review [version 2; referees: 1 approved, 3 approved with reservations ...
- Transparency in peer reviewon September 8, 2017 at 6:05 am
It follows that the evidence—data, peer review—on which claims are made should be made open too. Finally, transparency has the potential to improve the quality of research and reduce research ...
via Bing News