Readings
These are starter readings for Topic 7. Please also read the associated blog posts and listen to the podcasts.
Towards a new model of scientific publishing
Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers
What is open peer review? A systematic review
Podcast
Hertz Podcast 76: Open Peer Review
- Peer review is typically conducted behind closed doors. There’s been a recent push to make open peer review standard, but what’s often left out of these conversations are the potential downsides. To illustrate this, Dan and James discuss a recent instance of open peer review that led to considerable online debate.
Essay Topic - Reforming Peer Review
For centuries, academic publishing has relied on peer review as a method of ensuring that published research is of sufficient quality to be disseminated. Most research published in peer-reviewed academic journals must be assessed by at least two qualified experts before reaching the final stage of acceptance to the journal. However, peer reviewers are usually other academics who are not paid or otherwise compensated for their time, and the increasing expectation to publish many papers every year means that it is often difficult for editors to find qualified reviewers willing to perform this task. In addition, most peer review is anonymous, and reviews are seldom published alongside the paper, meaning that there is little incentive to spend time writing helpful, constructive reviews, and no transparency for readers on how the process has been carried out. Some research has shown poor reliability for peer reviews.
Is it time to go back to the drawing board and revamp the whole process? In this essay, you will examine the history of peer review, the current situation (looking at advantages and drawbacks), and outline new models aimed at reforming the peer review process. Refer to the starter readings in Topic 7 to begin.
Some questions to consider:
- Should peer review be anonymous? If so, should it be double-blind or single-blind?
- Should peer review be open (i.e., should reviews be published alongside the paper)? If so, should it be anonymous or should reviewers’ names be published?
- Should reviewers sign their reviews? Why, or why not?
- Are there more modern ways to handle peer review (e.g. with a more conversation-style system rather than in a series of emails)?
- What is post-publication peer review? Could it eventually replace pre-publication peer review? What are the advantages and drawbacks?
Forum
One of the main ways of telling whether a piece of scientific research is reliable is whether it has passed the rigorous peer review process and been published in a journal. But as we have seen from previous topics, this does not necessarily guarantee that the research is sound. Most peer review is not open to public scrutiny; should it be? Should there be double-blind peer review, open peer review, post-publication peer review or some combination of all of these? What do you think?
Post your thoughts below!