Academic journals are increasingly asking authors to use transparent reporting practices to “trust, but verify” that outcomes are not being reported in a biased way and to enable other researchers to reproduce the results. To implement these reporting practices, most journals rely on the process of peer review — in which other scholars review research findings before publication — but relatively few journals measure the quality and effectiveness of the process.
In a commentary published July 20 in the journal Science, lead author Carole Lee and co-author David Moher identify incentives that could encourage journals to “open the black box of peer review” for the sake of improving transparency, reproducibility, and trust in published research. Lee is an associate professor of philosophy at the University of Washington; Moher is a senior scientist at The Ottawa Hospital and associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Ottawa.
Lee and Moher see this as a collective action problem requiring leadership and investment by publishers.
“Science would be better off if journals allowed for and participated in the empirical study and quality assurance of their peer review processes,” they write. “However, doing so is resource-intensive and comes at considerable risk for individual journals in the form of unfavorable evidence and bad press.”
To help journals manage the reputational risk associated with auditing their own peer review processes, Lee and Moher suggest revising the Transparency and Openness (TOP) Guidelines, a set of voluntary reporting standards to which 2,900 journals and organizations are now signatories. These guidelines were published in Science in 2015 by a committee of researchers and representatives from nonprofit scientific organizations, grant agencies, philanthropic organizations and elite journals.
Lee and Moher suggest adding a new category to the TOP guidelines “indicating a journal’s willingness to facilitate meta-research on the effectiveness of its own peer review practices.” With these, journals can choose which tier or level they take on. Higher levels of transparency would involve higher risk.
- For the lowest tier, journals would publicly disclose whether they are conducting internal evaluations of peer review, in which they are able to retain the study results for internal use.
- At the middle tier, journals would disclose the results of their internal evaluations of peer review, but could maintain flexibility in how they report their results for external use. For example, results could be aggregated across several journals to reduce risk to any single journal.
- At the upper tier, journals could agree to relinquish data and analyses to researchers outside their institution for third-party verification. This is an option, Lee and Moher write, “that might appeal especially to publishers with fewer resources, as it places the financial burden on those conducting the meta-research.” Journals conducting their own analyses could preregister their study designs then deposit their data publicly online.
By agreeing to these more stringent guidelines, the authors write, publishers and journals would have the chance to legitimize and advertise the relative quality of their peer review process in an age when predatory journals, which falsely claim to use peer review, continue to proliferate.
“Illegitimate journals are becoming a big problem for science,” said Moher. “True scientific journals can distinguish themselves with transparence about their peer review processes.”
Investing in research on journal peer review will be costly, they agree. Lee and Moher suggest that large experimental studies are needed to judge the effectiveness of different web-based peer review templates to enforce reporting standards, and of ways one might train authors, reviewers and editors to use such tools and evaluate research.
Also needed, they say, are ways to detect shortcomings in statistical and methodological reporting on a research paper, and to understand how the number and relative expertise of peer reviewers can improve assessment.
The largest publishers, whose profit margins compete with those of pharmaceutical and tech giants, can afford to invest in the requisite technology and resources needed to carry out these audits, the researchers say.
“Publishers should invest in their own brands and reputations by investing in the quality of their peer review processes,” said Lee. “Ultimately, this would improve the quality of the published scientific literature.”
The Latest on: Journal peer review
- Professor’s research on food systems featured in journal, upcoming bookon October 9, 2020 at 3:59 pm
Albie Miles' research topic on food system resilience in the era of global environmental change is open for submissions.
- Promising COVID-19 Research Highlighted and Warnings of Misleading Studies in New Peer Reviewson October 9, 2020 at 7:09 am
The preprints selected for review in Rapid Reviews: COVID-19 (RR:C19), an open-access overlay journal published by the MIT Press, cover a wide range of subjects, with peer reviewers finding a study th ...
- MIT peer reviews refute lab origin of coronaviruson October 8, 2020 at 4:23 pm
Four peer reviews published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology refute a study that asserts the virus responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic was created by intentional genetic manipulation in ...
- Recent Peer-Reviewed Publication Supports Immunotherapy for the Treatment of Food Allergieson October 8, 2020 at 7:11 am
NEW YORK, Oct. 08, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- A recent publication in the journal Immunotherapy reviews a variety of ... "We are excited about the publication of this comprehensive review of ...
- New peer reviews of COVID-19 research highlight promising, warn of misleading studieson October 7, 2020 at 9:00 pm
Peer reviewers highlight promising research that higher levels of cytokines IL-6 and IL-10 are associated with increased severity of COVID-19, while also flagging misleading research suggesting ...
- University of Louisville student group launches peer-reviewed undergrad research journalon October 6, 2020 at 9:57 pm
By Baylee Pulliam University of Louisville A University of Louisville student group is launching a peer-reviewed journal to highlight undergraduate research and scholarship across all disciplines, ...
- Demystifying the American Journal of Public Health: Taking a Look at the Peer Review Processon October 1, 2020 at 4:16 am
In this webinar presented by the AJPH Editorial Board, APHA members will learn about the peer review process of the premier journal in public health – the American Journal of Public Health (AJPH).
- 13 Scientists Say—in a Real Journal!—There's a Black Hole at the Center of Earthon September 29, 2020 at 3:30 pm
It all started when scientists found a black hole at the center of the Earth ... Scientists have uncovered a bizarre, indefensible paper that squeaked through peer review at what appears at first pass ...
- New Peer-Reviewed Data Highlight the Benefits of XHANCE in Patients Who Remain Symptomatic After Treatment with Standard Nasal Steroid Sprayson September 29, 2020 at 6:30 am
PRNewswire/ -- Optinose (NASDAQ:OPTN), a pharmaceutical company focused on patients treated by ear, nose and throat (ENT) and allergy ...
- New peer reviews of COVID-19 preprints from the MIT Press journal Rapid Reviews: COVID-19on September 28, 2020 at 9:00 pm
Peer reviewers highlight promising research highlighting reform in public health and employment law, an approach for identifying asymptomatic COVID-19 patients, and strong evidence that inhaled ...
via Google News and Bing News