Back to Search Start Over

A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review.

Authors :
Tennant JP
Dugan JM
Graziotin D
Jacques DC
Waldner F
Mietchen D
Elkhatib Y
B Collister L
Pikas CK
Crick T
Masuzzo P
Caravaggi A
Berg DR
Niemeyer KE
Ross-Hellauer T
Mannheimer S
Rigling L
Katz DS
Greshake Tzovaras B
Pacheco-Mendoza J
Fatima N
Poblet M
Isaakidis M
Irawan DE
Renaut S
Madan CR
Matthias L
Nørgaard Kjær J
O'Donnell DP
Neylon C
Kearns S
Selvaraju M
Colomb J
Source :
F1000Research [F1000Res] 2017 Jul 20; Vol. 6, pp. 1151. Date of Electronic Publication: 2017 Jul 20 (Print Publication: 2017).
Publication Year :
2017

Abstract

Peer review of research articles is a core part of our scholarly communication system. In spite of its importance, the status and purpose of peer review is often contested. What is its role in our modern digital research and communications infrastructure? Does it perform to the high standards with which it is generally regarded? Studies of peer review have shown that it is prone to bias and abuse in numerous dimensions, frequently unreliable, and can fail to detect even fraudulent research. With the advent of web technologies, we are now witnessing a phase of innovation and experimentation in our approaches to peer review. These developments prompted us to examine emerging models of peer review from a range of disciplines and venues, and to ask how they might address some of the issues with our current systems of peer review. We examine the functionality of a range of social Web platforms, and compare these with the traits underlying a viable peer review system: quality control, quantified performance metrics as engagement incentives, and certification and reputation. Ideally, any new systems will demonstrate that they out-perform and reduce the biases of existing models as much as possible. We conclude that there is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages. We also propose a novel hybrid platform model that could, at least partially, resolve many of the socio-technical issues associated with peer review, and potentially disrupt the entire scholarly communication system. Success for any such development relies on reaching a critical threshold of research community engagement with both the process and the platform, and therefore cannot be achieved without a significant change of incentives in research environments.<br />Competing Interests: Competing interests: JPT works for ScienceOpen and is the founder of paleorXiv; TRH and LM work for OpenAIRE; LM works for Aletheia; DM is a co-founder of RIO Journal, on the Editorial Board of PLOS Computational Biology and on the Board of WikiProject Med; CN and DPD are the President and Vice-President of FORCE11, respectively.

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
2046-1402
Volume :
6
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
F1000Research
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
29188015.2
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12037.2