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
- Nature Journals To Charge Authors Hefty Fee To Make Scientific Papers Open Accesson November 26, 2020 at 3:46 am
Springer Nature, one of the giants of academic science publishing, announced this week its plans to allow researchers to make their articles free and open ...
- Will have to wait for final words in scientific journal: CSIR chief on Covidshieldon November 24, 2020 at 1:26 pm
A day after Serum Institute of India (SII) Chief Executive Officer Adar Poonawalla asserted that its soon to be widely available COVID-19 vaccine will offer protection up to 90 per cent in one type of ...
- 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.
- For €9500, Nature journals will now make your paper free to readon November 23, 2020 at 11:26 pm
In that process, if editors of the three journals and colleagues decide a manuscript is worthy enough to send out for peer review, they will ask authors to pay an initial fee of €2190 to cover review ...
- ‘Noble Volunteers’ Review: The Men Beneath the Red Coatson November 23, 2020 at 8:15 pm
Few caricatures from the American Revolution are as well-developed as that of the soldier who fought for Britain.
- After scalding critiques of study on gender and mentorship, journal says it is reviewing the workon November 21, 2020 at 6:50 am
A massive study of mentoring, gender, and career outcomes released by Nature Communications has ignited a firestorm of criticism for its conclusions, which have been labeled as sexist by many ...
- Oxford, AstraZeneca Coronavirus Vaccine’s Strong Response in Elderly Confirmed in Reviewon November 19, 2020 at 8:02 am
A Covid-19 vaccine being developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca showed promising immune responses in elderly and older adults, with fewer serious side effects than in younger volunteers ...
- Aries Systems and Digital Commons partner to offer Editorial Manager® to Digital Commons premier journalson November 19, 2020 at 12:37 am
Aries' Editorial Manager® (EM), the industry leading cloud-based manuscript submission and peer review tracking system, will be the backbone for the new Digital Commons Premier journals program.
- AAAS announces new Science Partner Journal, Ultrafast Scienceon November 18, 2020 at 9:17 am
AAAS is pleased to announce a new Science Partner Journal launched in affiliation with Xi'an Institute of Optics and Precision Mechanics and focused on advances in disciplines including attosecond ...
- Accelerator at WGU Labs Partners with Peerceptiv, Leader in Peer-to-Peer Learning Technologyon November 18, 2020 at 7:00 am
WGU Labs, Inc., an affiliate of online nonprofit Western Governors University (WGU), today announced an Accelerator engagement with Peerceptiv. The Peerceptiv solution breaks down academic ...
via Google News and Bing News