J Korean Med Sci.  2020 May;35(20):e138. 10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e138.

Innovative Strategies for Peer Review

• Barroga E

• KMID: 2500845
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e138

Abstract

Peer review is a crucial part of research and publishing. However, it remains imperfect and suffers from bias, lack of transparency, and professional jealousy. It is also overburdened by an increasing quantity of complex papers against the stagnant pool of reviewers, causing delays in peer review. Additionally, many medical, nursing, and healthcare educators, peer reviewers, and authors may not be completely familiar with the current changes in peer review. Moreover, reviewer education and training have unfortunately remained lacking. This is especially crucial since current initiatives to improve the review process are now influenced by factors other than academic needs. Thus, increasing attention has recently focused on ways of streamlining the peer review process and implementing alternative peer-review methods using new technologies and open access models. This article aims to give an overview of the innovative strategies for peer review and to consider perspectives that may be helpful in introducing changes to peer review. Critical assessments of peer review innovations and incentives based on past and present experiences are indispensable. A theoretical appraisal must be balanced by a realistic appraisal of the ethical roles of all stakeholders in enhancing the peer review process. As the peer review system is far from being perfect, identifying and developing core competencies among reviewers, continuing education of researchers, reviewer education and training, and professional engagement of the scientific community in various disciplines may help bridge gaps in an imperfect but indispensable peer review system.

Keyword

Peer Review; Open Access Publishing; Peer Reviewer; Publications; Education; Bias

Reference

1. Stahel PF, Moore EE. Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system. BMC Med. 2014; 12(1):179. PMID: 25270270.

2. Björk BC, Catani P. Peer review in megajournals compared with traditional scholarly journals: does it make a difference? Learn Publ. 2016; 29(1):9–12.

3. Barroga EF. Safeguarding the integrity of science communication by restraining ‘rational cheating’ in peer review. J Korean Med Sci. 2014; 29(11):1450–1452. PMID: 25408573.

4. Teixeira da Silva JA. Challenges to open peer review. Online Inf Rev. 2019; 43(2):197–200.

5. Bourke-Waite A. Innovations in scholarly peer review at Nature Publishing Group and Palgrave Macmillan. Insights. 2015; 28(2):93–99.

6. Venkitasubramaniam P, Sahai A. Incentivizing anonymous “peer-to-peer” reviews. In : Proceedings of the 46th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing; 2009 Mar 4; Urbana-Champaign, IL. Accessed August 22, 2019. https://www.lehigh.edu/~pav309/papers/VenkSahai_PeerReview_08Allerton.pdf.

7. Tennant JP, Dugan JM, Graziotin D, Jacques DC, Waldner F, Mietchen D, et al. A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review. F1000 Res. 2017; 6:1151.

8. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Blackmore H, Kitas GD. Writing a narrative biomedical review: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors. Rheumatol Int. 2011; 31(11):1409–1417. PMID: 21800117.

9. Gregory AT, Denniss AR. Everything you need to know about peer review — the good, the bad and the ugly. Heart Lung Circ. 2019; 28(8):1148–1153. PMID: 31230792.

10. Misra DP, Ravindran V, Agarwal V. Integrity of authorship and peer review practices: challenges and opportunities for improvement. J Korean Med Sci. 2018; 33(46):e287. PMID: 30416407.

11. Ross-Hellauer T, Görögh E. Guidelines for open peer review implementation. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019; 4(1):4. PMID: 30858990.

12. Tennant JP, Ross-Hellauer T. The limitations to our understanding of peer review. SocArXiv Papers. Accessed December 24, 2019. https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/jq623/.

13. Van Noorden R. Company offers portable peer review. Nature. 2013; 494(7436):161. PMID: 23407520.

14. Barroga EF. Cascading peer review for open-access publishing. Eur Sci Ed. 2013; 39(4):90–91.

15. Hames I. The changing face of peer review. Sci Ed. 2014; 1(1):9–12.

16. Miller C. Rubriq, Nature Scientific Reports, and paid peer-review. BioBits Byte-size servings of Bioinformatics and Biology. Accessed August 22, 2019. http://chrisamiller.com/science/2015/03/28/rubriq-nature-scientific-reports-and-paid-peer-review/.

17. Horbach SP, Halffman W. Journal peer review and editorial evaluation: Cautious innovator or sleepy giant. Minerva. 2019.

18. Horbach SPJM, Halffman W. The changing forms and expectations of peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2018; 3(1):8. PMID: 30250752.

19. Rigorous, high-quality peer review. Accessed August 22, 2019. http://www.rubriq.com/.

20. Science Careers Staff. Interactive peer review. Science. Accessed August 22, 2019. http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2013/05/content-collection-interactive-peer-review.

21. Denmark B. Peer review: new approaches to an old system. Visionlearning: your sight into science. Accessed August 22, 2019. http://www.visionlearning.com/blog/2014/07/23/peer-review-approaches-system/.

22. Tennant JP. Decoupling peer review from publishing. Green Tea and Velociraptors. Accessed August 22, 2019. http://fossilsandshit.com/14-decoupling-peer-review-publishing/.

23. What is public post-publication peer review? ScienceOPEN.com. Accessed August 22, 2019. http://about.scienceopen.com/what-is-post-publication-peer-review/.

24. Suliyang H. Paid peer review. MIPHIDIC. Accessed August 22, 2019. https://miphidic.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/paid-peer-review/.

25. Warne V. Rewarding reviewers – sense or sensibility? A Wiley study explained. Learn Publ. 2016; 29(1):41–50.

26. Willis M. Why do peer reviewers decline to review manuscripts? A study of reviewer invitation responses. Learn Publ. 2016; 29(1):5–7.

27. Nguyen VM, Haddaway NR, Gutowsky LF, Wilson AD, Gallagher AJ, Donaldson MR, et al. How long is too long in contemporary peer review? Perspectives from authors publishing in conservation biology journals. PLoS One. 2015; 10(8):e0132557. PMID: 26267491.

28. Anderson K. Validation vs. filtration and designation — are we mismarketing the core strengths of peer review? The Scholarly Kitchen (What's Hot and Cooking in Scholarly Publishing). Accessed August 22, 2019. http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/02/18/validation-vs-filtration-and-designation-are-we-mismarketing-the-core-strengths-of-peer-review/.

29. Ahmed HS, Gasparyan AY. Criticism of peer review and ways to improve it. Eur Sci Ed. 2013; 39(1):8–10.

30. Steel G, Price A, Seth B, Biswas R, Chatterjee P. . Charity is welcome: the international benefits and pitfalls of peer review. PeerJ PrePrints. 2016; 4:e1585v2.

31. Gasparyan AY, Gerasimov AN, Voronov AA, Kitas GD. Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication. J Korean Med Sci. 2015; 30(4):360–364. PMID: 25829801.

32. Garg PK. Financial incentives to reviewers: double-edged sword. J Korean Med Sci. 2015; 30(6):832–833.

33. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Akazhanov NA, Kitas GD. Self-correction in biomedical publications and the scientific impact. Croat Med J. 2014; 55(1):61–72. PMID: 24577829.

34. Nicholas D. Advances in standards and training for journal editors and peer reviewers. Eur Sci Ed. 2018; 44(2):26–27.

35. Ten modules that will teach you how to review. Accessed December 27, 2019. https://publons.com/community/academy/.

36. Council of Science Editors (CSE). Reviewer roles and responsibilities. Accessed December 27, 2019. https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/white-paper-on-publication-ethics/2-3-reviewer-roles-and-responsibilities/.

37. World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). Definition of a peer-reviewed journal. Accessed December 27, 2019. https://www.wame.org/definition-of-a-peer-reviewed-journal.

38. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Responsibilities in the submission and peer-review process. Accessed December 27, 2019. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/responsibilities-in-the-submission-and-peer-peview-process.html.

39. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers (English). Accessed December 27, 2019. https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers.

40. Walker R, Rocha da Silva P. Emerging trends in peer review-a survey. Front Neurosci. 2015; 9:169. PMID: 26074753.

41. Rivera H. Fake peer review and inappropriate authorship are real evils. J Korean Med Sci. 2018; 34(2):e6. PMID: 30636943.

42. Ross-Hellauer T. What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000 Res. 2017; 6:588.

43. Schmidt B, Ross-Hellauer T, van Edig X, Moylan EC. Ten considerations for open peer review. F1000 Res. 2018; 7:969.

44. Ross-Hellauer T, Deppe A, Schmidt B. Survey on open peer review: attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers. PLoS One. 2017; 12(12):e0189311. PMID: 29236721.

45. Kowalczuk MK, Dudbridge F, Nanda S, Harriman SL, Patel J, Moylan EC. Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models. BMJ Open. 2015; 5(9):e008707.

46. Teixeira da Silva JA, Al-Khatib A. Should authors be requested to suggest peer reviewers? Sci Eng Ethics. 2018; 24(1):275–285. PMID: 28155093.

47. Horbach SP, Halffman W. The ability of different peer review procedures to flag problematic publications. Scientometrics. 2019; 118(1):339–373. PMID: 30930504.

48. Ali PA, Watson R. Peer review and the publication process. Nurs Open. 2016; 3(4):193–202. PMID: 27708830.