Scholarly peer review

For broader coverage of this topic, see Peer review.

Scholarly peer review or academic peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of having a draft version of a researcher's methods and findings reviewed (usually anonymously) by experts (or "peers") in the same field. Peer review is widely used for helping the academic publisher (that is, the editor-in-chief, the editorial board or the program committee) decide whether the work should be accepted, considered acceptable with revisions, or rejected for official publication in an academic journal, a monograph or in the proceedings of an academic conference. If the identities of authors are not revealed to each other, the procedure is called dual-anonymous peer review.

Academic peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) academic field, who are qualified and able to perform reasonably impartial review. Impartial review, especially of work in less narrowly defined or inter-disciplinary fields, may be difficult to accomplish, and the significance (good or bad) of an idea may never be widely appreciated among its contemporaries. Peer review is generally considered necessary to academic quality and is used in most major scholarly journals. However, peer review does not prevent publication of invalid research, ^[1] and as experimentally controlled studies of this process are difficult to arrange, direct evidence that peer review improves the quality of published papers is scarce. ^[2]

History

The first record of an editorial pre-publication peer-review is from 1665 by Henry Oldenburg, the founding editor of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society at the Royal Society of London. ^{[3] [4] [5]}

The first peer-reviewed publication might have been the Medical Essays and Observations published by the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1731. The present-day peer-review system evolved from this 18th-century process, ^[6] began to involve external reviewers in the mid-19th-century, ^[7] and did not become commonplace until the mid-20th-century. ^[8]

Peer review became a touchstone of the scientific method, but until the end of the 19th century was often performed directly by an editor-in-chief or editorial committee. ^{[9] [10] [11]} Editors of scientific journals at that time made publication decisions without seeking outside input, i.e. an external panel of reviewers, giving established authors latitude in their journalistic discretion. For example, Albert Einstein's four revolutionary Annus Mirabilis papers in the 1905 issue of Annalen der Physik were evaluated by the journal's editor-in-chief, Max Planck, and its co-editor, Wilhelm Wien, both future Nobel prize winners and together experts on the topics of these papers. On a much later occasion, Einstein was severely critical of the external review process, saying that he had not authorized the editor in chief to show his manuscript "to specialists before it is printed", and informing him that he would "publish the paper elsewhere" –which he did, with substantial modifications. ^{[12] [13]}

While some medical journals started to systematically appoint external reviewers, it is only since the middle of the 20th century that this practice has spread widely and that external reviewers have been given some visibility within academic journals, including being thanked by authors and editors. ^{[9] [14]} A 2003 editorial in Nature stated that, in the early 20th century, "the burden of proof was generally on the opponents rather than the proponents of new ideas." ^[15] Nature itself instituted formal peer review only in 1967. ^[16] Journals such as Science and the American Journal of Medicine increasingly relied on external reviewers in the 1950s and 1960s, in part to reduce the editorial workload. ^[14] In the 20th century, peer review also became common for science funding allocations. This process appears to have developed independently from that of editorial peer review. ^{[3] : 221}

Gaudet ^{[17] [ self-published source? ]} provides a social science view of the history of peer review carefully tending to what is under investigation, here peer review, and not only looking at superficial or self-evident commonalities among inquisition, censorship, and journal peer review. It builds on historical research by Gould, ^[18] Biagioli, ^[19] Spier, ^[11] and Rip. ^[20] The first Peer Review Congress met in 1989. ^[21] Over time, the fraction of papers devoted to peer review has steadily declined, suggesting that as a field of sociological study, it has been replaced by more systematic studies of bias and errors. ^[2] In parallel with "common experience" definitions based on the study of peer review as a "pre-constructed process", some social scientists have looked at peer review without considering it as pre-constructed. Hirschauer proposed that journal peer review can be understood as reciprocal accountability of judgements among peers. ^[22] Gaudet proposed that journal peer review could be understood as a social form of boundary judgement –determining what can be considered as scientific (or not) set against an overarching knowledge system, and following predecessor forms of inquisition and censorship. ^{[17] [ self-published source? ]}

Pragmatically, peer review refers to the work done during the screening of submitted manuscripts. This process encourages authors to meet the accepted standards of their discipline and reduces the dissemination of irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations, and personal views. Publications that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by academic scholars and professionals.^{[ citation needed ]} Non-peer-reviewed work does not contribute, or contributes less, to the academic credit of a scholar (such as the h-index), although this heavily depends on the field.

Justification

[P]eer review in its ideal form is both an act of altruism and an act of investment in the continuation of the scholarly enterprise by our colleagues. That is why it is so important to engage in thoughtful peer review as a scholar, and that is why it is important to do it well, acting not as a gatekeeper, but as a fellow contributor in the creation of knowledge. Collective wisdom.

Anna Marie Roos, editor-in-chief of Notes and Records: the Royal Society Journal of the History of Science , 2022 ^[23]

It is difficult and time-consuming for authors and researchers, whether individually or in a team, to spot and provide feedback on every mistake or flaw in a complicated piece of work. ^[24] This is not necessarily a reflection on those concerned, but because with a new and perhaps eclectic subject, an opportunity for improvement may be more obvious to someone with special expertise or who simply looks at it with a fresh eye. Therefore, showing work to others increases the probability that weaknesses will be identified and improved. For both grant-funding and publication in a scholarly journal, it is also normally a requirement that the subject is both novel and substantial. ^{[25] [26]}

The decision whether or not to publish a scholarly article, or what should be modified before publication, ultimately lies with the publisher (editor-in-chief or the editorial board) to which the manuscript has been submitted. Similarly, the decision whether or not to fund a proposed project rests with an official of the funding agency. These individuals usually refer to the opinion of one or more reviewers in making their decision. This is primarily for three reasons:^{[ citation needed ]}

• Workload. A small group of editors/assessors cannot devote sufficient time to each of the many articles submitted to many journals.
• Miscellany of ideas. Were the editor/assessor to judge all submitted material themselves, approved material would solely reflect their opinion.
• Limited expertise. An editor/assessor cannot be expected to be sufficiently expert in all areas covered by a single journal or funding agency to adequately judge all submitted material.

Reviewers are often anonymous and independent. However, some reviewers may choose to waive their anonymity, and in other limited circumstances, such as the examination of a formal complaint against the referee, or a court order, the reviewer's identity may have to be disclosed. Anonymity may be unilateral or reciprocal (single- or double-blinded reviewing).^{[ citation needed ]}

Since reviewers are normally selected from experts in the fields discussed in the article, the process of peer review helps to keep some invalid or unsubstantiated claims out of the body of published research and knowledge. Scholars will read published articles outside their limited area of detailed expertise, and then rely, to some degree, on the peer-review process to have provided reliable and credible research that they can build upon for subsequent or related research. Significant scandal ensues when an author is found to have falsified the research included in an article, as other scholars, and the field of study itself, may have relied upon the invalid research.^{[ citation needed ]}

For US universities, peer reviewing of books before publication is a requirement for full membership of the Association of American University Presses. ^[27]

Procedure

In the case of proposed publications, the publisher (editor-in-chief or the editorial board, often with assistance of corresponding or associate editors) sends advance copies of an author's work or ideas to researchers or scholars who are experts in the field (known as "referees" or "reviewers"). Communication is nowadays normally by e-mail or through a web-based manuscript processing system such as ScholarOne, Scholastica, or Open Journal Systems. Depending on the field of study and on the specific journal, there are usually one to three referees for a given article. For example, Springer states that there are two or three reviewers per article. ^[28]

The peer-review process involves three steps: ^[29]

Step 1: Desk evaluation

An editor evaluates the manuscript to judge whether the paper will be passed on to journal referees. At this phase many articles receive a "desk reject", that is, the editor chooses not to pass along the article. The authors may or may not receive a letter of explanation.

Desk rejection is intended to be a streamlined process so that editors may move past nonviable manuscripts quickly and provide authors with the opportunity to pursue a more suitable journal. For example, the European Accounting Review editors subject each manuscript to three questions to decide whether a manuscript moves forward to referees: 1) Is the article a fit for the journal's aims and scope, 2) is the paper content (e.g. literature review, methods, conclusions) sufficient and does the paper make a worthwhile contribution to the larger body of literature, and 3) does it follow format and technical specifications? If "no" to any of these, the manuscript receives a desk rejection. ^[30]

Desk rejection rates vary by journal. For example, in 2017 researchers at the World Bank compiled rejection rates of several global economics journals; the desk rejection rate ranged from 21% (Economic Lacea) to 66% ( Journal of Development Economics ). ^[31] The American Psychological Association publishes rejection rates for several major publications in the field, and although they do not specify whether the rejection is pre- or post- desk evaluation, their figures in 2016 ranged from a low of 49% to a high of 90%. ^[32]

Step 2: External review

If the paper is not desk rejected, the editors send the manuscript to the referees, who are chosen for their expertise and distance from the authors. At this point, referees may reject, accept without changes (rare) ^[33] or instruct the authors to revise and resubmit.

Reasons vary for acceptance of an article by editors, but Elsevier published an article where three editors weigh in on factors that drive article acceptance. These factors include whether the manuscript: delivers "new insight into an important issue", will be useful to practitioners, advances or proposes a new theory, raises new questions, has appropriate methods and conclusion, presents a good argument based on the literature, and tells a good story. One editor notes that he likes papers that he "wished he'd done" himself. ^[34]

These referees each return an evaluation of the work to the editor, noting weaknesses or problems along with suggestions for improvement. Typically, most of the referees' comments are eventually seen by the author, though a referee can also send 'for your eyes only' comments to the publisher; scientific journals observe this convention almost universally. The editor then evaluates the referees' comments, her or his own opinion of the manuscript before passing a decision back to the author(s), usually with the referees' comments. ^[35]

Referees' evaluations usually include an explicit recommendation of what to do with the manuscript or proposal, often chosen from options provided by the journal or funding agency. For example, Nature recommends four courses of action: ^[36]

• to unconditionally accept the manuscript or the proposal,
• to accept it in the event that its authors improve it in certain ways
• to reject it, but encourage revision and invite re-submission
• to reject it outright.

During this process, the role of the referees is advisory. The editor(s) is typically under no obligation to accept the opinions of the referees, ^[37] though he or she will most often do so. Furthermore, the referees in scientific publication do not act as a group, do not communicate with each other, and typically are not aware of each other's identities or evaluations. Proponents argue that if the reviewers of a paper are unknown to each other, the editor(s) can more easily verify the objectivity of the reviews. There is usually no requirement that the referees achieve consensus, with the decision instead often made by the editor(s) based on her best judgement of the arguments.

In situations where multiple referees disagree substantially about the quality of a work, there are a number of strategies for reaching a decision. The paper may be rejected outright, or the editor may choose which reviewer's point the authors should address. ^[38] When a publisher receives very positive and very negative reviews for the same manuscript, the editor will often solicit one or more additional reviews as a tie-breaker. As another strategy in the case of ties, the publisher may invite authors to reply to a referee's criticisms and permit a compelling rebuttal to break the tie. If a publisher does not feel confident to weigh the persuasiveness of a rebuttal, the publisher may solicit a response from the referee who made the original criticism. An editor may convey communications back and forth between authors and a referee, in effect allowing them to debate a point. ^[39]

Even in these cases, however, publishers do not allow multiple referees to confer with each other, though each reviewer may often see earlier comments submitted by other reviewers. The goal of the process is explicitly not to reach consensus or to persuade anyone to change their opinions, but instead to provide material for an informed editorial decision. One early study regarding referee disagreement found that agreement was greater than chance, if not much greater than chance, on six of seven article attributes (e.g. literature review and final recommendation to publish), ^[40] but this study was small and it was conducted on only one journal. At least one study has found that reviewer disagreement is not common, but this study is also small and on only one journal. ^[41]

Traditionally, reviewers would often remain anonymous to the authors, but this standard varies both with time and with academic field. In some academic fields, most journals offer the reviewer the option of remaining anonymous or not, or a referee may opt to sign a review, thereby relinquishing anonymity. Published papers sometimes contain, in the acknowledgments section, thanks to anonymous or named referees who helped improve the paper. For example, Nature journals provide this option. ^[36]

Sometimes authors may exclude certain reviewers: one study conducted on the Journal of Investigative Dermatology found that excluding reviewers doubled the chances of article acceptance. ^[42] Some scholars are uncomfortable with this idea, arguing that it distorts the scientific process. Others argue that it protects against referees who are biased in some manner (e.g. professional rivalry, grudges). ^[43] In some cases, authors can choose referees for their manuscripts. mSphere , an open-access journal in microbial science, has moved to this model. Editor-in-Chief Mike Imperiale says this process is designed to reduce the time it takes to review papers and permit the authors to choose the most appropriate reviewers. ^[44] But a scandal in 2015 shows how this choosing reviewers can encourage fraudulent reviews. Fake reviews were submitted to the Journal of the Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System in the names of author-recommended reviewers, causing the journal to eliminate this option. ^[45]

Step 3: Revisions

If the manuscript has not been rejected during peer review, it returns to the authors for revisions. During this phase, the authors address the concerns raised by reviewers. William Stafford Noble offers ten rules for responding to reviewers. His rules include: ^[46]

1. "Provide an overview, then quote the full set of reviews"
2. "Be polite and respectful of all reviewers"
3. "Accept the blame"
4. "Make the response self-contained"
5. "Respond to every point raised by the reviewer"
6. "Use typography to help the reviewer navigate your response"
7. "Whenever possible, begin your response to each comment with a direct answer to the point being raised"
8. "When possible, do what the reviewer asks"
9. "Be clear about what changed relative to the previous version"
10. "If necessary, write the response twice" (i.e. write a version for "venting" but then write a version the reviewers will see)

Recruiting referees

At a journal or book publisher, the task of picking reviewers typically falls to an editor. ^[47] When a manuscript arrives, an editor solicits reviews from scholars or other experts who may or may not have already expressed a willingness to referee for that journal or book division. Granting agencies typically recruit a panel or committee of reviewers in advance of the arrival of applications. ^[48]

Referees are supposed to inform the editor of any conflict of interests that might arise. Journals or individual editors may invite a manuscript's authors to name people whom they consider qualified to referee their work. For some journals this is a requirement of submission. Authors are sometimes also given the opportunity to name natural candidates who should be disqualified, in which case they may be asked to provide justification (typically expressed in terms of conflict of interest). ^{[ citation needed ]}

Editors solicit author input in selecting referees because academic writing typically is very specialized. Editors often oversee many specialties, and can not be experts in all of them. But after an editor selects referees from the pool of candidates, the editor typically is obliged not to disclose the referees' identities to the authors, and in scientific journals, to each other. Policies on such matters differ among academic disciplines.^{[ citation needed ]} One difficulty with respect to some manuscripts is that, there may be few scholars who truly qualify as experts, people who have themselves done work similar to that under review. This can frustrate the goals of reviewer anonymity and avoidance of conflicts of interest. Low-prestige or local journals and granting agencies that award little money are especially handicapped with regard to recruiting experts.^{[ citation needed ]}

A potential hindrance in recruiting referees is that they are usually not paid, largely because doing so would itself create a conflict of interest. Also, reviewing takes time away from their main activities, such as his or her own research. ^[49] To the would-be recruiter's advantage, most potential referees are authors themselves, or at least readers, who know that the publication system requires that experts donate their time. Serving as a referee can even be a condition of a grant, or professional association membership. ^[50] In general, because of the explosion of the electronic information and the disproportionate increase in journal number versus the steady increase in the number of scientists has created a peer review crisis. The system currently in place is not responding to modern needs and will inevitably perish, unless radical reforms are made promptly. The academic system should revolutionize and establish strict peer review activity criteria essential for promotion and tenure, based on established universal metrics. ^[51] That is, reward reviewers academically as it rewards researchers, which is currently not the case. All other incentives have failed. ^[50]

Referees have the opportunity to prevent work that does not meet the standards of the field from being published, which is a position of some responsibility. Editors are at a special advantage in recruiting a scholar when they have overseen the publication of his or her work, or if the scholar is one who hopes to submit manuscripts to that editor's publishing entity in the future. Granting agencies, similarly, tend to seek referees among their present or former grantees. ^{[ citation needed ]}

Peerage of Science was an independent service and a community where reviewer recruitment happens via Open Engagement: authors submit their manuscript to the service where it is made accessible for any non-affiliated scientist, and 'validated users' choose themselves what they want to review. The motivation to participate as a peer reviewer comes from a reputation system where the quality of the reviewing work is judged and scored by other users, and contributes to user profiles. Peerage of Science does not charge any fees to scientists, and does not pay peer reviewers. Participating publishers however pay to use the service, gaining access to all ongoing processes and the opportunity to make publishing offers to the authors.^{[ citation needed ]}

With independent peer review services the author usually retains the right to the work throughout the peer review process, and may choose the most appropriate journal to submit the work to. ^{[52] [53]} Peer review services may also provide advice or recommendations on most suitable journals for the work. Journals may still want to perform an independent peer review, without the potential conflict of interest that financial reimbursement may cause, or the risk that an author has contracted multiple peer review services but only presents the most favorable one.^{[ citation needed ]}

An alternative or complementary system of performing peer review is for the author to pay for having it performed. Example of such service provider was Rubriq (2013-2017), that for each work assigned peer reviewers who were financially compensated for their efforts. ^{[54] [55]}

Different styles

Anonymous and attributed

For most scholarly publications, the identity of the reviewers is kept anonymised (also called "blind peer review"). The alternative, attributed peer review involves revealing the identities of the reviewers. Some reviewers choose to waive their right to anonymity, even when the journal's default format is blind peer review.

In anonymous peer review, reviewers are known to the journal editor or conference organiser but their names are not given to the article's author. In some cases, the author's identity can also be anonymised for the review process, with identifying information stripped from the document before review. The system is intended to reduce or eliminate bias. ^[11]

Some experts proposed blind review procedures for reviewing controversial research topics. ^[56]

In double-blind peer review, which has been fashioned by sociology journals in the 1950s ^[57] and remains more common in the social sciences and humanities than in the natural sciences,^{[ citation needed ]} the identity of the authors is concealed from the reviewers ("blinded"), and vice versa, lest the knowledge of authorship or concern about disapprobation from the author bias their review. ^[58] Critics of the double-blind review process point out that, despite any editorial effort to ensure anonymity, the process often fails to do so, since certain approaches, methods, writing styles, notations, etc., point to a certain group of people in a research stream, and even to a particular person. ^{[59] [60]}

In many fields of "big science", the publicly available operation schedules of major equipments, such as telescopes or synchrotrons, would make the authors' names obvious to anyone who would care to look them up. Proponents of double-blind review argue that it performs no worse than single-blind, and that it generates a perception of fairness and equality in academic funding and publishing. ^[61] Single-blind review is strongly dependent upon the goodwill of the participants, but no more so than double-blind review with easily identified authors.

As an alternative to single-blind and double-blind review, authors and reviewers are encouraged to declare their conflicts of interest when the names of authors and sometimes reviewers are known to the other. When conflicts are reported, the conflicting reviewer can be prohibited from reviewing and discussing the manuscript, or his or her review can instead be interpreted with the reported conflict in mind; the latter option is more often adopted when the conflict of interest is mild, such as a previous professional connection or a distant family relation. The incentive for reviewers to declare their conflicts of interest is a matter of professional ethics and individual integrity. Even when the reviews are not public, they are still a matter of record and the reviewer's credibility depends upon how they represent themselves among their peers. Some software engineering journals, such as the IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering , use non-blind reviews with reporting to editors of conflicts of interest by both authors and reviewers.^{[ citation needed ]}

A more rigorous standard of accountability is known as an audit. Because reviewers are not paid, they cannot be expected to put as much time and effort into a review as an audit requires. Therefore, academic journals such as Science , organizations such as the American Geophysical Union, and agencies such as the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation maintain and archive scientific data and methods in the event another researcher wishes to replicate or audit the research after publication. ^{[62] [63] [64]}

The traditional anonymous peer review has been criticized for its lack of accountability, the possibility of abuse by reviewers or by those who manage the peer review process (that is, journal editors), ^[65] its possible bias, and its inconsistency, ^[66] alongside other flaws. ^{[67] [68]} Eugene Koonin, a senior investigator at the National Center for Biotechnology Information, asserts that the system has "well-known ills" and advocates "open peer review". ^[69]

Open peer review

This section is an excerpt from Open peer review.[ edit ]

Open peer review is the various possible modifications of the traditional scholarly peer review process. The three most common modifications to which the term is applied are: ^[70]

1. Open identities: Authors and reviewers are aware of each other's identity. ^{[71] [72]}
2. Open reports: Review reports are published alongside the relevant article (rather than being kept confidential).
3. Open participation: The wider community (and not just invited reviewers) are able to contribute to the review process.

These modifications are supposed to address various perceived shortcomings of the traditional scholarly peer review process, in particular its lack of transparency, lack of incentives, wastefulness, ^[70] bullying and harassment. ^[73]

Pre- and post-publication peer review

The process of peer review is not restricted to the publication process managed by academic journals. In particular, some forms of peer review can occur before an article is submitted to a journal and/or after it is published by the journal.

Pre-publication peer review

Manuscripts are typically reviewed by colleagues before submission, and if the manuscript is uploaded to preprint servers, such as ArXiv, BioRxiv or SSRN, researchers can read and comment on the manuscript. The practice to upload to preprint servers, and the activity of discussion heavily depend on the field, ^{[74] [75]} and it allows an open pre-publication peer review. The advantage of this method is speed and transparency of the review process. Anyone can give feedback, typically in form of comments, and typically not anonymously. These comments are also public, and can be responded to, therefore author-reviewer communication is not restricted to the typical 2–4 rounds of exchanges in traditional publishing. The authors can incorporate comments from a wide range of people instead of feedback from the typically 3–4 reviewers. The disadvantage is that a far larger number of papers are presented to the community without any guarantee on quality.

Post-publication peer review

After a manuscript is published, the process of peer review continues as publications are read, known as post-publication peer review. Readers will often send letters to the editor of a journal, or correspond with the editor via an on-line journal club. In this way, all "peers" may offer review and critique of published literature. The introduction of the "epub ahead of print" practice in many journals has made possible the simultaneous publication of unsolicited letters to the editor together with the original paper in the print issue.^{[ citation needed ]}

A variation on this theme is open peer commentary, in which commentaries from specialists are solicited on published articles and the authors are invited to respond. Journals using this process solicit and publish non-anonymous commentaries on the "target paper" together with the paper, and with original authors' reply as a matter of course. Open peer commentary was first implemented by the anthropologist Sol Tax, who founded the journal Current Anthropology in 1957. ^[76] The journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences , published by Cambridge University Press, was founded by Stevan Harnad in 1978 ^[77] and modeled on Current Anthropology 's open peer commentary feature. ^[78] Psycoloquy (1990–2002) ^[79] was based on the same feature, but this time implemented online. Since 2016 open peer commentary is also provided by the journal Animal Sentience .

In addition to journals hosting their own articles' reviews, there are also external, independent websites dedicated to post-publication peer-review, such as PubPeer which allows anonymous commenting of published literature and pushes authors to answer these comments. ^[80] It has been suggested that post-publication reviews from these sites should be editorially considered as well. ^[81] The megajournals F1000Research and ScienceOpen publish openly both the identity of the reviewers and the reviewer's report alongside the article.

Some journals use post-publication peer review as formal review method, instead of pre-publication review. This was first introduced in 2001, by Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP). ^[82] More recently F1000Research, Qeios, and ScienceOpen were launched as megajournals with post-publication review as formal review method. ^{[83] [84] [85]} At ACP,F1000Research, and Qeios peer reviewers are formally invited, much like at pre-publication review journals. Articles that pass peer review at those three journals are included in external scholarly databases. ^{[86] [87]}

Social media and informal peer review

Recent research has called attention to the use of social media technologies and science blogs as a means of informal, post-publication peer review, as in the case of the #arseniclife (or GFAJ-1) controversy. ^[88] In December 2010, an article published in Scienceexpress (the ahead-of-print version of Science ) generated both excitement and skepticism, as its authors –led by NASA astrobiologist Felisa Wolfe-Simon  –claimed to have discovered and cultured a certain bacteria that could replace phosphorus with arsenic in its physiological building blocks. At the time of the article's publication, NASA issued press statements suggesting that the finding would impact the search for extraterrestrial life, sparking excitement on Twitter under the hashtag #arseniclife, as well as criticism from fellow experts who voiced skepticism via their personal blogs. ^[89] Ultimately, the controversy surrounding the article attracted media attention, ^[90] and one of the most vocal scientific critics – Rosemary Redfield  –formally published in July 2012 ^[91] regarding her and her colleagues' unsuccessful attempt to replicate the NASA scientists' original findings.

Researchers following the impact of the #arseniclife case on social media discussions and peer review processes concluded the following:

Our results indicate that interactive online communication technologies can enable members in the broader scientific community to perform the role of journal reviewers to legitimize scientific information after it has advanced through formal review channels. In addition, a variety of audiences can attend to scientific controversies through these technologies and observe an informal process of post-publication peer review. (p 946) ^[88]

Result-blind peer review

See also: Preregistration (science)

Studies which report a positive or statistically significant result are far more likely to be published than ones which do not. A counter-measure to this positivity bias is to hide or make unavailable the results in the paper, making journal acceptance more like scientific grant agencies reviewing research proposals. Versions include:

1. Result-blind peer review or results blind peer review, first proposed 1966: Reviewers receive an edited version of the submitted paper which omits the results and conclusion section. ^{[92] [93] [94] [95] [96]} In a two-stage version, a second round of reviews or editorial judgment is based on the full paper version, which was first proposed in 1977. ^{[97] [98]}

   Conclusion-blind review, proposed by Robin Hanson in 2007 extends this further asking all authors to submit a positive and a negative version, and only after the journal has accepted the article authors reveal which is the real version. ^[99]

2. Pre-accepted articles or outcome-unbiased journals or advance publication review or registered reports or prior to results submission or early acceptance ^{[100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108]} extends study pre-registration to the point that journals accepted or reject papers based on the version of the paper written before the results or conclusions have been made (an enlarged study protocol), but instead describes the theoretical justification, experimental design, and statistical analysis. Only once the proposed hypothesis and methodology have been accepted by reviewers, the authors would collect the data or analyze previously collected data. A limited variant of a pre-accepted article was The Lancet's study protocol review from 1997 to 2015 reviewed and published randomized trial protocols with a guarantee that the eventual paper would at least be sent out to peer review rather than immediately rejected. ^{[109] [110]} For example, Nature Human Behaviour has adopted the registered report format, as it "shift[s] the emphasis from the results of research to the questions that guide the research and the methods used to answer them". ^[111] The European Journal of Personality defines this format: "In a registered report, authors create a study proposal that includes theoretical and empirical background, research questions/hypotheses, and pilot data (if available). Upon submission, this proposal will then be reviewed prior to data collection, and if accepted, the paper resulting from this peer-reviewed procedure will be published, regardless of the study outcomes." ^[112]

The following journals used result-blind peer review or pre-accepted articles:

• The European Journal of Parapsychology, under Martin Johnson (who proposed a version of Registered Reports in 1974), ^[113] began accepting papers based on submitted designs and then publishing them, from 1976 to 1993, and published 25 RRs total ^[98]
• The International Journal of Forecasting used opt-in result-blind peer review and pre-accepted articles from before 1986 ^[114] through 1996/1997. ^{[101] [115]}
• The journal Applied Psychological Measurement offered an opt-in "advance publication review" process from 1989 to 1996, ending use after only 5 papers were submitted. ^{[101] [116]}
• The JAMA Internal Medicine found in a 2009 survey that 86% of its reviewers would be willing to work in a result-blind peer review process, and ran a pilot experiment with a two-stage result-blind peer review, showing the unblinded step benefited positive studies more than negatives. ^[117] but the journal does not currently use result-blind peer review.^{[ citation needed ]}
• The Center for Open Science encourages using "Registered Reports" (pre-accepted articles) ^{[118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123]} beginning in 2013. As of October 2017, ~80 journals offer Registered Reports in general, have had special issues of Registered Reports, or limited acceptance of Registered Reports (e.g. replications only) including AIMS Neuroscience, Cortex , Perspectives on Psychological Science , Social Psychology, & Comparative Political Studies
  • Comparative Political Studies published results of its pilot experiment of 19 submissions of which 3 were pre-accepted in 2016. the process worked well but submissions were weighted towards quantitative experimental designs, and reduced the amount of 'fishing' as submitters and reviewers focused on theoretical backing, substantive importance of results, with attention to the statistical power and implications of a null result, concluding that "we can clearly state that this form of review lead to papers that were of the highest quality. We would love to see a top journal adopt results-free review as a policy, at very least allowing results-free review as one among several standard submission options." ^[124]

Extended peer review

Extended peer review is the process of including people and groups with experience beyond that of working academics in the processes of assuring the quality of research. If conducted systematically, this can lead to more reliable, or applicable, results than a peer review process conducted purely by academics. ^[125]

Criticism

Scholarly peer review has been subject to several criticisms, and various proposals for reforming the system have been suggested over the years. ^[126] Many studies have emphasized the problems inherent to the process of peer review. ^[127] Moreover, Ragone et al., ^[128] have shown that there is a low correlation between peer review outcomes and the future impact measured by citations.

Various biomedical editors in particular have expressed criticism of peer review. ^{[129] [130]} A Cochrane review found little empirical evidence that peer review ensures quality in biomedical research, ^[131] while a second systematic review and meta-analysis found a need for evidence-based peer review in biomedicine given the paucity of assessment of the interventions designed to improve the process. ^[132]

To an outsider, the anonymous, pre-publication peer review process is opaque. Certain journals are accused of not carrying out stringent peer review in order to more easily expand their customer base, particularly in journals where authors pay a fee before publication. ^[133] Richard Smith, MD, former editor of the British Medical Journal , has claimed that peer review is "ineffective, largely a lottery, anti-innovatory, slow, expensive, wasteful of scientific time, inefficient, easily abused, prone to bias, unable to detect fraud and irrelevant; Several studies have shown that peer review is biased against the provincial and those from low- and middle-income countries; Many journals take months and even years to publish and the process wastes researchers' time. As for the cost, the Research Information Network estimated the global cost of peer review at £1.9 billion in 2008." ^[134]

In addition, Australia's Innovative Research Universities group (a coalition of seven comprehensive universities committed to inclusive excellence in teaching, learning and research in Australia) has found that "peer review disadvantages researchers in their early careers, when they rely on competitive grants to cover their salaries, and when unsuccessful funding applications often mark the end of a research idea". ^[135]

Peer review publication is a common requirement for academic tenure. This requirement has been criticised on cultural grounds. In 2011, University of British Columbia assistant law professor, Lorna McCue, argued that emphasis on peer review publication was culturally inappropriate as it did not recognize the importance of Indigenous oral traditions. ^[136] In 2018, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal found that this complaint was not justified . ^[137]

There is an ongoing discussion about a peer-review crisis. In 2022 Inside Higher Ed reported a serious shortage of scholars to review submitted articles and bigger structural problems amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic. ^[138]

Low-end distinctions in articles understandable to all peers

Brezis and Birukou show that the peer review process is not working properly due to reviewer bias. Additionally, they underline that the ratings are not robust, e.g., changing reviewers can have a dramatic impact on the review results. Two main elements affect the bias in the peer process: ^[139]

• The first element is that referees display homophily in their taste and perception of innovative ideas. So reviewers who are developing conventional ideas will tend to give low grades to innovative projects, while reviewers who have developed innovative ideas tend, by homophily, to give higher grades to innovative projects.
• The second element leading to a high variance in the peer review process is that reviewers are not investing the same amount of time to analyze the projects (or equivalently are not with the same abilities). Brezis and Biruku ^[139] show that this heterogeneity among referees will lead to seriously affect the whole peer review process, and will lead to main arbitrariness in the results of the process. ^[139]

Medical researcher John Ioannidis expands on this second point, arguing that since the exams and other tests that people pass on their way from "layman" to "expert" focus on answering the questions in time and in accordance with a list of answers, and not on making precise distinctions (the latter of which would be unrecognizable to experts of lower cognitive precision), there is as much individual variation in the ability to distinguish causation from correlation among "experts" as there is among "laymen". Ioannidis argues that as a result, scholarly peer review by many "experts" allows only articles that are understandable at a wide range of cognitive precision levels including very low ones to pass, biasing publications towards favoring articles that infer causation from correlation while mislabelling articles that make the distinction as "incompetent overestimation of one's ability" on the side of the authors because some of the reviewing "experts" are cognitively unable to distinguish the distinction from alleged rationalization of specific conclusions. It is argued by Ioannidis that this makes peer review a cause of selective publication of false research findings while stopping publication of rigorous criticism thereof, and that further post-publication review repeats the same bias by selectively retracting the few rigorous articles that may have made it through initial pre-publication peer review while letting the low-end ones that confuse correlation and causation remain in print. ^[140]

Tendency to Discourage Innovative Projects

The peer process is also in use for projects acceptance. (For projects, the acceptance rates are small and are between 1% and 20%, with an average of 10%. In the European H2020 calls, the acceptance rate is 1.8%.) Peer review is more problematic when choosing the projects to be funded since innovative projects are not highly ranked in the existing peer-review process. The peer-review process leads to conformity, i.e., the selection of less controversial projects and papers. This may even influence the type of proposals scholars will propose, since scholars need to find financing for their research as discussed by Martin, 1997: ^[141] "A common informal view is that it is easier to obtain funds for conventional projects. Those who are eager to get funding are not likely to propose radical or unorthodox projects. Since you don't know who the referees are going to be, it is best to assume that they are middle-of-the-road. Therefore, the middle-of-the-road application is safer". ^[139]

Peer review and trust

Researchers have peer-reviewed manuscripts prior to publishing them in a variety of ways since the 18th century. ^{[142] [143]} The main goal of this practice is to improve the relevance and accuracy of scientific discussions. Even though experts often criticize peer review for a number of reasons, the process is still often considered the "gold standard" of science. ^[144] Occasionally however, peer review approves studies that are later found to be wrong and rarely deceptive or fraudulent results are discovered prior to publication. ^{[145] [146]} Thus, there seems to be an element of discord between the ideology behind and the practice of peer review. By failing to effectively communicate that peer review is imperfect, the message conveyed to the wider public is that studies published in peer-reviewed journals are "true" and that peer review protects the literature from flawed science. A number of well-established criticisms exist of many elements of peer review. ^{[147] [148] [149]} In the following we describe cases of the wider impact inappropriate peer review can have on public understanding of scientific literature.

Multiple examples across several areas of science find that scientists elevated the importance of peer review for research that was questionable or corrupted. For example, climate change deniers have published studies in the Energy and Environment journal, attempting to undermine the body of research that shows how human activity impacts the Earth's climate. Politicians in the United States who reject the established science of climate change have then cited this journal on several occasions in speeches and reports. ^[150]

At times, peer review has been exposed as a process that was orchestrated for a preconceived outcome. The New York Times gained access to confidential peer review documents for studies sponsored by the National Football League (NFL) that were cited as scientific evidence that brain injuries do not cause long-term harm to its players. ^[151] During the peer review process, the authors of the study stated that all NFL players were part of a study, a claim that the reporters found to be false by examining the database used for the research. Furthermore, The Times noted that the NFL sought to legitimize the studies" methods and conclusion by citing a "rigorous, confidential peer-review process" despite evidence that some peer reviewers seemed "desperate" to stop their publication. Recent research has also demonstrated that widespread industry funding for published medical research often goes undeclared and that such conflicts of interest are not appropriately addressed by peer review. ^{[152] [153]} Conflict of interest is less likely to be picked up in double-blinded reviews since the reviewer does not know the identity of the authors. ^[154]

Another problem that peer review fails to catch is ghostwriting, a process by which companies draft articles for academics who then publish them in journals, sometimes with little or no changes. ^[155] These studies can then be used for political, regulatory and marketing purposes. In 2010, the US Senate Finance Committee released a report that found this practice was widespread, that it corrupted the scientific literature and increased prescription rates. ^[156] Ghostwritten articles have appeared in dozens of journals, involving professors at several universities. ^[157]

Just as experts in a particular field have a better understanding of the value of papers published in their area, scientists are considered to have better grasp of the value of published papers than the general public and to see peer review as a human process, with human failings, ^[158] and that "despite its limitations, we need it. It is all we have, and it is hard to imagine how we would get along without it". ^[159] But these subtleties are lost on the general public, who are often misled into thinking that being published in a journal with peer review is the "gold standard" and can erroneously equate published research with the truth. ^[158] Thus, more care must be taken over how peer review, and the results of peer-reviewed research, are communicated to non-specialist audiences; particularly during a time in which a range of technical changes and a deeper appreciation of the complexities of peer review are emerging. ^{[160] [161] [162] [163]} This will be needed as the scholarly publishing system has to confront wider issues such as retractions ^{[146] [164] [165]} and replication or reproducibility "crises". ^{[166] [167] [168]}

Views of peer review

Peer review is often considered integral to scientific discourse in one form or another. Its gatekeeping role is supposed to be necessary to maintain the quality of the scientific literature ^{[169] [170]} and avoid a risk of unreliable results, inability to separate signal from noise, and slow scientific progress. ^{[171] [172]}

Shortcomings of peer review have been met with calls for even stronger filtering and more gatekeeping. A common argument in favor of such initiatives is the belief that this filter is needed to maintain the integrity of the scientific literature. ^{[173] [174]}

Calls for more oversight have at least two implications that are counterintuitive of what is known to be true scholarship. ^[158]

1. The belief that scholars are incapable of evaluating the quality of work on their own, that they are in need of a gatekeeper to inform them of what is good and what is not.
2. The belief that scholars need a "guardian" to make sure they are doing good work.

Others argue ^[158] that authors most of all have a vested interest in the quality of a particular piece of work. Only the authors could have, as Feynman (1974) ^[175] puts it, the "extra type of integrity that is beyond not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist." If anything, the current peer review process and academic system could penalize, or at least fail to incentivize, such integrity.

Instead, the credibility conferred by the "peer-reviewed" label could diminish what Feynman calls the culture of doubt necessary for science to operate a self-correcting, truth-seeking process. ^[176] The effects of this can be seen in the ongoing replication crisis, hoaxes, and widespread outrage over the inefficacy of the current system. ^{[147] [142]} It's common to think that more oversight is the answer, as peer reviewers are not at all lacking in skepticism. But the issue is not the skepticism shared by the select few who determine whether an article passes through the filter. It is the validation, and accompanying lack of skepticism, that comes afterwards. ^[177] Here again more oversight only adds to the impression that peer review ensures quality, thereby further diminishing the culture of doubt and counteracting the spirit of scientific inquiry. ^[178]

Quality research –even some of our most fundamental scientific discoveries –dates back centuries, long before peer review took its current form. ^{[142] [179] [143]} Whatever peer review existed centuries ago, it took a different form than it does in modern times, without the influence of large, commercial publishing companies or a pervasive culture of publish or perish. ^[179] Though in its initial conception it was often a laborious and time-consuming task, researchers took peer review on nonetheless, not out of obligation but out of duty to uphold the integrity of their own scholarship. They managed to do so, for the most part, without the aid of centralised journals, editors, or any formalised or institutionalised process whatsoever. Supporters of modern technology argue ^[158] that it makes it possible to communicate instantaneously with scholars around the globe, make such scholarly exchanges easier, and restore peer review to a purer scholarly form, as a discourse in which researchers engage with one another to better clarify, understand, and communicate their insights. ^{[161] [180]}

Such modern technology includes posting results to preprint servers, preregistration of studies, open peer review, and other open science practices. ^{[167] [181] [182]} In all these initiatives, the role of gatekeeping remains prominent, as if a necessary feature of all scholarly communication, but critics argue ^[149] that a proper, real-world implementation could test and disprove this assumption; demonstrate researchers' desire for more that traditional journals can offer; show that researchers can be entrusted to perform their own quality control independent of journal-coupled review. Jon Tennant also argues that the outcry over the inefficiencies of traditional journals centers on their inability to provide rigorous enough scrutiny, and the outsourcing of critical thinking to a concealed and poorly-understood process. Thus, the assumption that journals and peer review are required to protect scientific integrity seems to undermine the very foundations of scholarly inquiry. ^[158]

To test the hypothesis that filtering is indeed unnecessary to quality control, many of the traditional publication practices would need to be redesigned, editorial boards repurposed if not disbanded, and authors granted control over the peer review of their own work. Putting authors in charge of their own peer review is seen as serving a dual purpose. ^[158] On one hand, it removes the conferral of quality within the traditional system, thus eliminating the prestige associated with the simple act of publishing. Perhaps paradoxically, the removal of this barrier might actually result in an increase of the quality of published work, as it eliminates the cachet of publishing for its own sake. On the other hand, readers know that there is no filter so they must interpret anything they read with a healthy dose of skepticism, thereby naturally restoring the culture of doubt to scientific practice. ^{[183] [184] [185]}

In addition to concerns about the quality of work produced by well-meaning researchers, there are concerns that a truly open system would allow the literature to be populated with junk and propaganda by those with a vested interest in certain issues. A counterargument is that the conventional model of peer review diminishes the healthy skepticism that is a hallmark of scientific inquiry, and thus confers credibility upon subversive attempts to infiltrate the literature. ^[158] Allowing such "junk" to be published could make individual articles less reliable but render the overall literature more robust by fostering a "culture of doubt". ^[183]

Allegations of bias and suppression

The interposition of editors and reviewers between authors and readers may enable the intermediators to act as gatekeepers. ^[186] Some sociologists of science argue that peer review makes the ability to publish susceptible to control by elites and to personal jealousy. ^[187] The peer review process may sometimes impede progress and may be biased against novelty. ^{[15] [188]} A linguistic analysis of review reports suggests that reviewers focus on rejecting the applications by searching for weak points, and not on finding the high-risk/high-gain groundbreaking ideas that may be in the proposal. ^[189] Reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views, ^{[190] [191]} and lenient towards those that match them. At the same time, established scientists are more likely than others to be sought out as referees, particularly by high-prestige journals/publishers. As a result, ideas that harmonize with the established experts' are more likely to see print and to appear in premier journals than are iconoclastic or revolutionary ones. This accords with Thomas Kuhn's well-known observations regarding scientific revolutions. ^[192] A theoretical model has been established whose simulations imply that peer review and over-competitive research funding foster mainstream opinion to monopoly. ^[193]

Criticisms of traditional anonymous peer review allege that it lacks accountability, can lead to abuse by reviewers, and may be biased and inconsistent. ^{[68] [66] [194]}

There have also been suggestions of gender bias in peer review, with male authors being likely to receive more favorable treatment. ^[195] However, a 2021 study found no evidence for such bias (and found that in some respects female authors were treated more favourably). ^{[196] [197] [198]}

Exploitation of free work

Most academic publishers do not financially compensate reviewers for their participation in the peer-review process, which has been criticized by the academic community. ^[199] Whereas some publishers have contended that it is economically not feasible to pay reviewers, ^[199] some journals have started to pay reviewers through platforms such as Research Square when they are unable to receive free reviews. Other publishers such as Advances.in have made paying reviewers an inherent part of their business model. ^[200]

Open access journals and peer review

Some critics of open access (OA) journals have argued that, compared to traditional subscription journals, open access journals might utilize substandard or less formal peer review practices, and, as a consequence, the quality of scientific work in such journals will suffer. ^{[201] [ unreliable source? ]} In a study published in 2012, this hypothesis was tested by evaluating the relative "impact" (using citation counts) of articles published in open access and subscription journals, on the grounds that members of the scientific community would presumably be less likely to cite substandard work, and that citation counts could therefore act as one indicator of whether or not the journal format indeed impacted peer review and the quality of published scholarship. ^[202] This study ultimately concluded that "OA journals indexed in Web of Science and/or Scopus are approaching the same scientific impact and quality as subscription journals, particularly in biomedicine and for journals funded by article processing charges," and the authors consequently argue that "there is no reason for authors not to choose to publish in OA journals just because of the 'OA' label.

Failures

Peer review fails when a peer-reviewed article contains fundamental errors that undermine at least one of its main conclusions and that could have been identified by more careful reviewers. Many journals have no procedure to deal with peer review failures beyond publishing letters to the editor. ^[203] Peer review in scientific journals assumes that the article reviewed has been honestly prepared. The process occasionally detects fraud, but is not designed to do so. ^[204] When peer review fails and a paper is published with fraudulent or otherwise irreproducible data, the paper may be retracted. A 1998 experiment on peer review with a fictitious manuscript found that peer reviewers failed to detect some manuscript errors and the majority of reviewers may not notice that the conclusions of the paper are unsupported by its results. ^[205]

Fake peer review

There have been instances where peer review was claimed to be performed but in fact was not; this has been documented in some predatory open access journals (e.g., the Who's Afraid of Peer Review? affair) or in the case of sponsored Elsevier journals. ^[206]

In November 2014, an article in Nature exposed that some academics were submitting fake contact details for recommended reviewers to journals, so that if the publisher contacted the recommended reviewer, they were the original author reviewing their own work under a fake name. ^[207] The Committee on Publication Ethics issued a statement warning of the fraudulent practice. ^[208] In March 2015, BioMed Central retracted 43 articles ^[209] and Springer retracted 64 papers in 10 journals in August 2015. ^[210] Tumor Biology journal is another example of peer review fraud. ^[206]

In 2020, the Journal of Nanoparticle Research fell victim to an "organized rogue editor network", who impersonated respected academics, got a themed issue created, and got 19 substandard articles published (out of 80 submitted). ^{[211] [212]} The journal was praised for dealing with the scam openly and transparently. ^[211]

Plagiarism

Reviewers generally lack access to raw data, but do see the full text of the manuscript, and are typically familiar with recent publications in the area. Thus, they are in a better position to detect plagiarism of prose than fraudulent data. A few cases of such textual plagiarism by historians, for instance, have been widely publicized. ^[213]

On the scientific side, a poll of 3,247 scientists funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health found 0.3% admitted faking data and 1.4% admitted plagiarism. ^[214] Additionally, 4.7% of the same poll admitted to self-plagiarism or autoplagiarism, in which an author republishes the same material, data, or text, without citing their earlier work. ^{[214] [ clarification needed ]} Self-plagiarisms are less likely to be detected in double-blinded peer reviews. ^[154]

Examples

Further information: SCIgen

• "Perhaps the most widely recognized failure of peer review is its inability to ensure the identification of high-quality work. The list of important scientific papers that were rejected by some peer-reviewed journals goes back at least as far as the editor of Philosophical Transaction's 1796 rejection of Edward Jenner's report of the first vaccination against smallpox." ^[215]
• The Soon and Baliunas controversy involved the publication in 2003 of a review study written by aerospace engineer Willie Soon and astronomer Sallie Baliunas in the journal Climate Research, ^[216] which was quickly taken up by the G.W. Bush administration as a basis for amending the first Environmental Protection Agency Report on the Environment. The paper was strongly criticized by numerous scientists for its methodology and for its misuse of data from previously published studies, prompting concerns about the peer review process of the paper. The controversy resulted in the resignation of several editors of the journal and the admission by its publisher Otto Kinne that the paper should not have been published as it was.
• The trapezoidal rule, in which the method of Riemann sums for numerical integration was republished in a Diabetes research journal, Diabetes Care . ^[217] The method is almost always taught in high school calculus, and was thus considered an example of an extremely well known idea being re-branded as a new discovery. ^[218]
• A conference organized by the Wessex Institute of Technology was the target of an exposé by three researchers who wrote nonsensical papers (including one that was composed of random phrases). They reported that the papers were "reviewed and provisionally accepted" and concluded that the conference was an attempt to "sell" publication possibilities to less experienced or naive researchers. ^[219] This may however be better described as a lack of any actual peer review, rather than peer review having failed.
• In the humanities, one of the most infamous cases of plagiarism undetected by peer review involved Martin Stone, formerly professor of medieval and Renaissance philosophy at the Hoger Instituut voor Wijsbegeerte of the KU Leuven. Martin Stone managed to publish at least forty articles and book chapters that were almost entirely stolen from the work of others. Most of these publications appeared in highly rated peer-reviewed journals and book series. ^{[220] [221]}
• The controversial Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, which evolved directly from pseudoscience and now forms the basis for the pseudoarchaeology of Graham Hancock's Ancient Apocalypse, was first published in the peer-reviewed journal PNAS using a nonstandard review system, according to a comprehensive refutation by Holliday et al. (2023). ^[222] According to this 2023 review, "Claiming evidence where none exists and providing misleading citations may be accidental, but when conducted repeatedly, it becomes negligent and undermines scientific advancement as well as the credibility of science itself. Also culpable is the failure of the peer review process to prevent such errors of fact from entering the literature. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 'contributed review' system for National Academy members...is at least partially responsible. The 'pal reviews' (as some refer to them) were significantly curtailed in 2010, in part due to the YDIH controversy."

Proposed Alternatives

Other attempts to reform the peer review process originate among others from the fields of metascience and journalology. Reformers seek to increase the reliability and efficiency of the peer review process and to provide it with a scientific foundation. ^{[223] [224] [225]} Alternatives to common peer review practices have been put to the test, ^{[226] [227]} in particular open peer review , where the comments are visible to readers, generally with the identities of the peer reviewers disclosed as well, e.g., F1000, eLife , BMJ , and BioMed Central. ^[228] In the case of eLife, peer review is used not for deciding whether to publish an article, but for assessing its importance and reliability. ^[229] Likewise, the recognition and recruitment of peer reviewers continues to be a significant issue in the field of scholarly publishing. ^[230]

In popular culture

In 2017, the Higher School of Economics in Moscow unveiled a "Monument to an Anonymous Peer Reviewer". It takes the form of a large concrete cube, or dice, with "Accept", "Minor Changes", "Major Changes", "Revise and Resubmit" and "Reject" on its five visible sides. Sociologist Igor Chirikov, who devised the monument, said that while researchers have a love-hate relationship with peer review, peer reviewers nonetheless do valuable but mostly invisible work, and the monument is a tribute to them. ^[231]

See also

• Academic authorship
• Academic bias
• Academic journal
• Abstract management
• Conference proceedings
• Coercive citation
• Interdisciplinary peer review
• Journal club
• Publication bias
• Reporting bias
• Scholarly method
• Sternberg peer review controversy
• Statcheck

References

1. Kupferschmidt K (August 14, 2018). "Researcher at the center of an epic fraud remains an enigma to those who exposed him". Science. doi: 10.1126/science.aav1079 .
2. Couzin-Frankel J (September 2013). "Biomedical publishing. Secretive and subjective, peer review proves resistant to study". Science. 341 (6152): 1331. doi:10.1126/science.341.6152.1331. PMID   24052283.
3. Steinzor R (2006). Rescuing Science from Politics. Cambridge University Press. p. 304. ISBN   978-0-521-85520-4.
4. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 1995, 82 pages, ISBN   0309119707 ^{[ page needed ]}
5. "The Origin of the Scientific Journal and the Process of Peer Review", House of Commons Select Committee Report
6. Benos DJ, Bashari E, Chaves JM, Gaggar A, Kapoor N, LaFrance M, et al. (June 2007). "The ups and downs of peer review". Advances in Physiology Education. 31 (2): 145–152 [145]. doi:10.1152/advan.00104.2006. PMID   17562902. S2CID   296058. Scientific peer review has been defined as the evaluation of research findings for competence, significance, and originality by qualified experts. These peers act as sentinels on the road of scientific discovery and publication.
7. Blow NS (January 2015). "Benefits and Burdens of Peer-Review". BioTechniques. 58 (1): 5. doi: 10.2144/000114242 .
8. "Benefits and Burdens of Peer-Review (editorial)". BioTechniques . 58 (1): 5. January 2015. doi: 10.2144/000114242 .
9. Pontille D, Torny D (2014). "From manuscript evaluation to article valuation: the changing technologies of journal peer review". Human Studies. 38: 57–79. doi:10.1007/s10746-014-9335-z. S2CID   53387591.
10. Csiszar A (April 2016). "Peer review: Troubled from the start". Nature. 532 (7599): 306–308. Bibcode:2016Natur.532..306C. doi: 10.1038/532306a . PMID   27111616. S2CID   4458585.
11. Spier R (August 2002). "The history of the peer-review process". Trends in Biotechnology. 20 (8): 357–358. doi:10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01985-6. PMID   12127284.
12. Kennefick D (September 2005). "Einstein versus the Physical Review". Physics Today. 58 (9): 43–48. Bibcode:2005PhT....58i..43K. doi: 10.1063/1.2117822 . S2CID   122132354.
13. Basen I (May 19, 2023). "The peer-review process is in need of some scrutiny". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved March 29, 2024. Einstein replied that he had not authorized anyone to review the paper before publication.
14. Baldwin M (September 1, 2018). "Scientific Autonomy, Public Accountability, and the Rise of "Peer Review" in the Cold War United States". Isis. 109 (3): 538–558. doi:10.1086/700070. ISSN   0021-1753. S2CID   150175444.
15. "Coping with peer rejection". Nature. 425 (6959): 645. October 2003. Bibcode:2003Natur.425..645.. doi: 10.1038/425645a . PMID   14562060. S2CID   4380827.
16. Tan MH (2018). "Chapter 7: Peer review – Past, Present and Future". In Markovac J, Kleinman M, Englesbe M (eds.). Medical and Scientific Publishing: Author, Editor, and Reviewer Perspectives. Academic Press. pp. 55–68. ISBN   978-0-12-809969-8.
17. Gaudet J (July 16, 2014). "Investigating journal peer review as scientific object of study:unabridged version – Part I". UO Research. hdl:10393/31319.
18. Gould T (2012). Do We Still Need Peer Review?. The Scarecrow Press. ISBN   978-0-8108-8574-5.^{[ page needed ]}
19. Biagioli M (2002). "From book censorship to academic peer review". Emergences. 12 (1): 11–45. doi:10.1080/1045722022000003435. S2CID   143577949.
20. Rip A (1985). "Commentary: Peer review is alive and well in the United States". Science, Technology, & Human Values. 10 (3): 82–86. doi:10.1177/016224398501000310. S2CID   144738593.
21. Rennie D, Flanagin A (January 2018). "Three Decades of Peer Review Congresses". JAMA. 319 (4): 350–353. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.20606 . PMID   29362775.
22. Hirschauer S (2010). "Editorial judgements: A praxeology of 'voting' in peer review". Social Studies of Science. 40 (1): 71–103. doi:10.1177/0306312709335405. S2CID   145222636.
23. Roos AM (2022). "Publish and flourish, or the collective wisdom of peer review". Notes and Records . 76 (3): 335–6. doi:10.1098/rsnr.2022.0022. PMC   9364700 . PMID   35974900.
24. Thomson T, Irvine L, Thomas G (May 16, 2024). "Learning the art of Scholarly Peer-Review: Insights from the Communication Discipline". Media International Australia. doi:10.1177/1329878X241254568. ISSN   1329-878X.
25. "Peer Review Panels – Purpose and Process" (PDF). USDA Forest Service. February 6, 2006. Retrieved October 4, 2010.
26. Sims Gerald K. (1989). "Student Peer Review in the Classroom: A Teaching and Grading Tool" (PDF). Journal of Agronomic Education . 18 (2): 105–108. doi:10.2134/jae1989.0105. The review process was double-blind to provide anonymity for both authors and reviewers, but was otherwise handled in a fashion similar to that used by scientific journals
27. "AAUP Membership Benefits and Eligibility". Association of American University Presses. Archived from the original on August 20, 2016. Retrieved August 3, 2016.
28. "Peer Review". www.springer.com. Retrieved April 17, 2018.
29. Spicer A. "Explainer: what is peer review?". The Conversation. Retrieved April 17, 2018.
30. Stolowy H (2017). "Letter from the Editor: Why Are Papers Desk Rejected at European Accounting Review". European Accounting Review. 26 (3): 411–418. doi: 10.1080/09638180.2017.1347360 . S2CID   157531858.
31. McKenzie D (February 21, 2017). "The State of Development Journals 2017: Quality, Acceptance Rates, and Review Times". Impact Evaluations. Archived from the original on April 18, 2018. Retrieved April 17, 2018.
32. "Summary Report of Journal Operations, 2016". American Psychologist. 72 (5): 499–500. 2017. doi:10.1037/amp0000172. PMID   28726464. S2CID   1271000.
33. "Peer review process and editorial decision making at journals". Editage Insights. April 11, 2013.
34. Zwaaf E (January 15, 2013). "8 reasons I accepted your article". Elsevier Connect. Retrieved April 17, 2018.
35. Benos DJ, Kirk KL, Hall JE (December 2003). "How to review a paper". Advances in Physiology Education. 27 (1–4): 47–52. doi:10.1152/advan.00057.2002. PMID   12760840. S2CID   35635960.
36. "Peer-review policy : authors & referees @ npg". www.nature.com. Retrieved April 17, 2018.
37. "Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals". ICMJE. December 16, 2014. Retrieved June 26, 2015.
38. "What should editors do when referees disagree?". Dynamic Ecology. September 2, 2014. Retrieved April 17, 2018.
39. Coleman AM (1979). "Editorial role in author-referee disagreements" (PDF). Bulletin of the British Psychological Society. 32: 390–391. Archived from the original (PDF) on August 10, 2017. Retrieved November 12, 2018.
40. Scott WA (1974). "Interreferee agreement on some characteristics of manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology". American Psychologist. 29 (9): 698–702. doi:10.1037/h0037631.
41. Pless IB (August 2006). "When reviewers disagree". Injury Prevention. 12 (4): 211. doi:10.1136/ip.2006.090806. PMC   2586794 . PMID   16887940.
42. Grimm D (2005). "Suggesting or Excluding Reviewers Can Help Get Your Paper Published". Science. 309 (5743): 1974. doi: 10.1126/science.309.5743.1974 . PMID   16179438. S2CID   38626590.
43. Grimm D (September 23, 2005). "Reviewers Can Help Get Your Paper Published". Science. doi: 10.1126/article.61887 .
44. "Journal's new program: Choose your own reviewers – and get a decision in days". Retraction Watch. December 12, 2016. Retrieved April 17, 2018.
45. "Eight retractions for fake reviews lead journal to suspend author nominations". Retraction Watch. December 24, 2015. Retrieved April 17, 2018.
46. Noble WS (October 2017). "Ten simple rules for writing a response to reviewers". PLOS Computational Biology. 13 (10): e1005730. Bibcode:2017PLSCB..13E5730N. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005730 . PMC   5638205 . PMID   29023444.
47. Lawrence O'Gorman (January 2008). "The (Frustrating) State of Peer Review" (PDF). IAPR Newsletter. 30 (1): 3–5.
48. Schwartz SM, Slater DW, Heydrick FP, Woolett GR (September 1995). "A Report of the AIBS Peer-Review Process for the US Army's 1994 Breast Cancer Initiative". BioScience. 45 (8): 558–563. doi:10.1093/bioscience/45.8.558. JSTOR   1312702.
49. Thomson T, Irvine L, Thomas G (May 16, 2024). "Learning the art of Scholarly Peer-Review: Insights from the Communication Discipline". Media International Australia. doi:10.1177/1329878X241254568. ISSN   1329-878X.
50. Chloros GD, Giannoudis VP, Giannoudis PV (January 1, 2022). "Peer-reviewing in Surgical Journals: Revolutionize or Perish?". Annals of Surgery. 275 (1): e82–e90. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000004756. ISSN   1528-1140. PMID   33630457. S2CID   232049402.
51. Thomson T, Irvine L, Thomas G (May 16, 2024). "Learning the art of Scholarly Peer-Review: Insights from the Communication Discipline". Media International Australia. doi:10.1177/1329878X241254568. ISSN   1329-878X.
52. Hames I (2014). "The changing face of peer review". Science Editing. 1: 9–12. doi: 10.6087/kcse.2014.1.9 .
53. Satyanarayana K (2013). "Journal publishing: the changing landscape". The Indian Journal of Medical Research. 138 (1): 4–7. PMC   3767268 . PMID   24056548.
54. Stemmle L, Collier K (2013). "RUBRIQ: Tools, services, and software to improve peer review". Learned Publishing. 26 (4): 265–268. doi: 10.1087/20130406 .
55. Davis P (September 25, 2017). "Portable Peer Review RIP".
56. Armstrong JS (1982). "Research on scientific journals: Implications for editors and authors". Journal of Forecasting. 1: 83–104. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.468.1453 . doi:10.1002/for.3980010109. S2CID   11911654.
57. Pontille D, Torny D (2014). "The Blind Shall See! The Question of Anonymity in Journal Peer Review". Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology. 4. doi: 10.7264/N3542KVW (inactive November 1, 2024).
58. Cressey D (2014). "Journals weigh up double-blind peer review". Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2014.15564. S2CID   155896469.
59. Markus A (December 28, 2005). "Double-blind peer review?". Archived from the original on October 22, 2020. Retrieved November 12, 2018.
60. "Working double-blind". Nature. 451 (7179): 605–606. 2008. Bibcode:2008Natur.451R.605.. doi: 10.1038/451605b . PMID   18256621. S2CID   4344755.
61. Mainguy G, Motamedi MR, Mietchen D (September 2005). "Peer review--the newcomers' perspective". PLOS Biology. 3 (9): e326. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030326 . PMC   1201308 . PMID   16149851.
62. "Policy on Referencing Data in and Archiving Data for AGU Publications". American Geophysical Union. 2012. Retrieved September 8, 2012. The following policy has been adopted for AGU publications in order to ensure that they can effectively and efficiently perform an expanded role in making the underlying data for articles available to researchers now and in the future.
    • This policy was first adopted by the AGU Publications Committee in November 1993 and then revised March 1994, December 1995, October 1996.
    • See also AGU Data Policy Archived May 6, 2013, at the Wayback Machine by Bill Cook. April 4, 2012.
63. "Data Management & Sharing Frequently Asked Questions". National Science Foundation. November 30, 2010. Archived from the original on July 11, 2017. Retrieved September 8, 2012.
64. Moore R, Rajasekar A, Wan M (2005). "Data Grids, Digital Libraries, and Persistent Archives: An Integrated Approach to Sharing, Publishing, and Archiving Data". Proceedings of the IEEE. 93 (3): 578–588. doi:10.1109/JPROC.2004.842761. S2CID   8597031.
65. Bingham C (2000). "Peer review and the ethics of internet publishing". In Jones AH, McLellan F (eds.). Ethical Issues in Biomedical Publication. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University. pp. 85–111. ISBN   978-0-8018-6315-8.
66. Rothwell PM, Martyn CN (September 2000). "Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?". Brain. 123 (9): 1964–1969. doi: 10.1093/brain/123.9.1964 . PMID   10960059.
67. "The Peer Review Process" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on December 21, 2012. Retrieved January 4, 2012.
68. Alison McCook (February 2006). "Is Peer Review Broken?". The Scientist .
69. Koonin E (2006). "Reviving a culture of scientific debate". Nature. doi:10.1038/nature05005 (inactive November 2, 2024). Archived from the original on December 21, 2012.
70. Ross-Hellauer T (August 31, 2017). "What is open peer review? A systematic review". F1000Research. 6. F1000 Research Ltd: 588. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.11369.2 . ISSN   2046-1402. PMC   5437951 . PMID   28580134.
71. Walsh E, Rooney M, Appleby L, Wilkinson G (January 2000). "Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial". The British Journal of Psychiatry. 176 (1): 47–51. doi: 10.1192/bjp.176.1.47 . PMID   10789326.
72. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R (January 1999). "Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial". BMJ. 318 (7175): 23–7. doi:10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23. PMC   27670 . PMID   9872878.
73. Sanders JK (January 2020). "Editorial 2020: Changing publishing and academic culture". Royal Society Open Science. 7 (1): 192197. Bibcode:2020RSOS....792197S. doi:10.1098/rsos.192197. ISSN   2054-5703. PMC   7029889 . PMID   32218987.
74. "The Stars Are Aligning for Preprints". The Scholarly Kitchen. April 18, 2017. Retrieved May 19, 2018.
75. "Biology preprints over time | ASAPbio". asapbio.org. Retrieved May 19, 2018.
76. "Obituary: Sol Tax, Anthropology" . Retrieved October 22, 2010.
77. "Editorial". Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1: 1–2. 1978. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00059045 .
78. New Scientist, 20 March 1980, p. 945 ^{[ permanent dead link ‍]}
79. Stevan Harnad (1991). "Post-Gutenberg Galaxy: The Fourth Revolution in the Means of Production of Knowledge". Public-Access Computer Systems Review. 2 (1): 39–53. Retrieved October 22, 2010.
80. Torny D (2018). "Pubpeer: vigilante science, journal club or alarm raiser? The controversies over anonymity in post-publication peer review".
81. Slavov N (November 2015). "Making the most of peer review". eLife. 4. doi: 10.7554/elife.12708 . PMC   4641509 . PMID   26559758.
82. Pöschl U (2012). "Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation". Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience. 6: 33. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00033 . PMC   3389610 . PMID   22783183.
83. Jeffrey Marlow (July 23, 2013). "Publish First, Ask Questions Later". Wired. Retrieved January 13, 2015.
84. Elizabeth Allen (September 29, 2017) [December 8, 2014]. "The recipe for our (not so) secret Post-Publication Peer Review sauce!". ScienceOpen.com. Retrieved January 13, 2015.
85. Coy P (January 28, 2022). "Opinion | How to Disseminate Science Quickly". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved October 4, 2022.
86. "F1000Research peer-reviewed articles now visible on PubMed and PubMed Central". STM Publishing News. December 12, 2013. Retrieved January 13, 2015.
87. Coy P (January 28, 2022). "Opinion | How to Disseminate Science Quickly". The New York Times. Retrieved October 4, 2022.
88. Yeo SK, Liang X, Brossard D, Rose KM, Korzekwa K, Scheufele DA, et al. (2017). "The case of #arseniclife: Blogs and Twitter in informal peer review". Public Understanding of Science. 26 (8): 937–952. doi:10.1177/0963662516649806. PMID   27229853. S2CID   20905189.
89. Redfield, Rosemary (4 December 2010). "Arsenic-associated bacteria (NASA's claims)". RR Research blog. Retrieved 4 December 2010.
90. Zimmer, Carl (7 December 2010). "Scientists see fatal flaws in the NASA study of arsenic-based life". Slate . Retrieved 7 December 2010.
91. Reaves ML, Sinha S, Rabinowitz JD, Kruglyak L, Redfield RJ (July 2012). "Absence of detectable arsenate in DNA from arsenate-grown GFAJ-1 cells". Science. 337 (6093): 470–473. arXiv: 1201.6643 . Bibcode:2012Sci...337..470R. doi:10.1126/science.1219861. PMC   3845625 . PMID   22773140.
92. Rosenthal R (1966). "Intentional Error". Experimenter Effects in Behavioral Research. p. 36.
93. Newcombe RG (September 1987). "Towards a reduction in publication bias". British Medical Journal. 295 (6599): 656–659. doi:10.1136/bmj.295.6599.656. PMC   1257777 . PMID   3117278.
94. Kupfersmid J (1988). "Improving what is published: A model in search of an editor". American Psychologist. 43 (8): 635–642. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.43.8.635.
95. Glymour MM, Kawachi I (2005). "Review of publication bias in studies on publication bias: Here's a proposal for editors that may help reduce publication bias". BMJ. 331 (7517): 638.2. doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7517.638-a. PMC   1215604 . PMID   16166149.
96. Smulders YM (2013). "A two-step manuscript submission process can reduce publication bias". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 66 (9): 946–947. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.03.023. PMID   23845183.
97. Mahoney MJ (1977). "Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system". Cognitive Therapy and Research. 1 (2): 161–175. doi:10.1007/BF01173636. S2CID   7350256.
98. Wiseman et al 2019, "Registered reports: an early example and analysis"
99. "Conclusion-Blind Review", 16 January 2007; "Result Blind Review", 6 November 2010; "Who Wants Unbiased Journals?", 27 April 2012
100. Walster GW, Cleary TA (1970). "A Proposal for a New Editorial Policy in the Social Sciences". The American Statistician. 24 (2): 16–19. doi:10.1080/00031305.1970.10478884. S2CID   20366741.
101. Armstrong JS (1997). "Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation". Science and Engineering Ethics. 3: 63–84. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.37.5054 . doi:10.1007/s11948-997-0017-3. S2CID   7920654.
102. Lawlor DA (2007). "Quality in epidemiological research: Should we be submitting papers before we have the results and submitting more hypothesis-generating research?". International Journal of Epidemiology. 36 (5): 940–943. doi: 10.1093/ije/dym168 . PMID   17875575.
103. "Academic reforms: A four-part proposal", Brendan Nyhan, 16 April 2012
104. "More on pre-accepted academic articles", 27 April 2012
105. Nyhan B (2015). "Increasing the Credibility of Political Science Research: A Proposal for Journal Reforms". PS: Political Science & Politics. 48: 78–83. doi:10.1017/S1049096515000463 (inactive November 1, 2024). S2CID   154801036.
106. "A Proposal for Increasing Evaluation in CS Research Publication" Archived August 16, 2016, at the Wayback Machine , David Karger, 17 February 2011
107. "It's the incentive structure, people! Why science reform must come from the granting agencies.", Chris Said, 17 April 2012
108. Chambers CD (March 2013). "Registered reports: a new publishing initiative at Cortex" (PDF). Cortex; A Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior. 49 (3): 609–610. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2012.12.016. hdl:2027.42/144295. PMID   23347556. S2CID   140204881.
109. "Read it, understand it, believe it, use it: Principles and proposals for a more credible research publication", Green et al 2013, citing "Protocol Review"
110. The Editors of The Lancet (2015). "Protocol review at The Lancet: 1997–2015". The Lancet. 386 (10012): 2456–2457. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01131-9. S2CID   140207427.
111. "Promoting reproducibility with registered reports". Nature Human Behaviour. 1: 0034. 2017. doi: 10.1038/s41562-016-0034 . S2CID   28976450.
112. "Streamlined review and registered reports soon to be official at EJP". February 6, 2018.
113. EJP editorial, Johnson 1975 (European Journal of Parapsychology. 1975;1(1):1-2); "Models of control and control of bias", Johnson 1975 (European Journal of Parapsychology. 1975;1(1):36–44); "On Publication Policy Regarding Non-Significant Results", Johnson 1976 (European Journal of Parapsychology 1976;1(2):1–5)
114. Armstrong JS, Dagum EB, Fildes R, Makridakis S (1986). "Publishing Standards for Research on Forecasting (editorial)". Marketing Papers (86).
115. Armstrong J (1996). "Publication of research on controversial topics: The early acceptance procedure". International Journal of Forecasting. 12 (2): 299–302. doi: 10.1016/0169-2070(95)00626-5 . S2CID   8545569.
116. Weiss DJ (1989). "An Experiment in Publication: Advance Publication Review". Applied Psychological Measurement. 13: 1–7. doi:10.1177/014662168901300101. S2CID   122661856.
117. Sridharan L, Greenland P (2009). "Editorial Policies and Publication Bias". Archives of Internal Medicine. 169 (11): 1022–1023. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2009.100. PMID   19506169. S2CID   5158555.
118. "Registered Reports", OSF
119. "Registered Reports: A step change in scientific publishing; Professor Chris Chambers, Registered Reports Editor of the Elsevier journal Cortex and one of the concept's founders, on how the initiative combats publication bias", Chambers, 13 November 2014
120. d Chambers C, Feredoes E, d Muthukumaraswamy S, j Etchells P (2014). "Instead of "playing the game" it is time to change the rules: Registered Reports at AIMS Neuroscience and beyond". AIMS Neuroscience. 1: 4–17. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2014.1.4 .
121. Nosek BA, Lakens D (2014). "Registered Reports". Social Psychology. 45 (3): 137–141. doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000192 .
122. Pain E (December 15, 2015). "Register your study as a new publication option". Science. doi:10.1126/science.caredit.a1500282.
123. "Psychology's 'registration revolution': Moves to uphold transparency are not only making psychology more scientific –they are harnessing our knowledge of the mind to strengthen science", Guardian, 20 May 2014
124. Findley MG, Jensen NM, Malesky EJ, Pepinsky TB (2016). "Can Results-Free Review Reduce Publication Bias? The Results and Implications of a Pilot Study". Comparative Political Studies. 49 (13): 1667–1703. doi:10.1177/0010414016655539. S2CID   44705752.
125. Funtowicz S (December 6, 2001). "Peer review and quality control". In Smelser NJ, Baltes PB (eds.). International Encyclopaedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences. pp. 11179–11183.
126. Thomson T, Irvine L, Thomas G (May 16, 2024). "Learning the art of Scholarly Peer-Review: Insights from the Communication Discipline". Media International Australia. doi:10.1177/1329878X241254568. ISSN   1329-878X.
127. Squazzoni F, Brezis E, Marušić A (October 1, 2017). "Scientometrics of peer review". Scientometrics. 113 (1): 501–502. doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2518-4. ISSN   1588-2861. PMC   5629222 . PMID   29056787.
128. Ragone A, Mirylenka K, Casati F, Marchese M (November 1, 2013). "On peer review in computer science: analysis of its effectiveness and suggestions for improvement". Scientometrics. 97 (2): 317–356. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1002-z. ISSN   0138-9130. S2CID   16803499.
129. Rennie D, Flanagin A, Smith R, Smith J (2003). "Fifth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication". JAMA. 289 (11): 1438. doi:10.1001/jama.289.11.1438.
130. Horton R (February 2000). "Genetically modified food: consternation, confusion, and crack-up". The Medical Journal of Australia. 172 (4): 148–149. doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2000.tb125533.x. PMID   10772580. S2CID   36401069.
131. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F (April 18, 2007). Cochrane Methodology Review Group (ed.). "Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2010 (2): MR000016. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000016.pub3. PMC   8973931 . PMID   17443635.
132. Bruce R, Chauvin A, Trinquart L, Ravaud P, Boutron I (December 2016). "Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis". BMC Medicine. 14 (1): 85. doi: 10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5 . ISSN   1741-7015. PMC   4902984 . PMID   27287500.
133. Couchman JR (November 11, 2013). "Peer Review and Reproducibility. Crisis or Time for Course Correction?". Journal of Histochemistry & Cytochemistry. 62 (1): 9–10. doi:10.1369/0022155413513462. PMC   3873808 . PMID   24217925.
134. "The peer review drugs don't work". Times Higher Education. May 28, 2015. Retrieved October 23, 2018.
135. "Peer review 'works against' early career researchers". Times Higher Education (THE). July 16, 2018. Retrieved October 23, 2018.
136. "McCue v. The University of British Columbia (No. 4), 2018 BCHRT 45 (CanLII)".
137. "Law prof fighting for tenure track loses legal battle". www.canadianlawyermag.com. Retrieved April 30, 2024.
138. "Peer-review crisis creates problems for journals and scholars". www.insidehighered.com. Retrieved June 15, 2022.
139. Brezis ES, Birukou A (April 1, 2020). "Arbitrariness in the peer review process". Scientometrics. 123 (1): 393–411. doi: 10.1007/s11192-020-03348-1 . ISSN   1588-2861. S2CID   211017926. Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
140. Ioannidis JP (2005). "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False". PLOS Medicine. 2 (8): e124. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 . PMC   1182327 . PMID   16060722.
141. Martin B. "Chapter 5: Peer review as scholarly conformity". www.bmartin.cc.
142. Csiszar A (2016). "Peer Review: Troubled from the Start". Nature. 532 (7599): 306–308. Bibcode:2016Natur.532..306C. doi: 10.1038/532306a . PMID   27111616.
143. Moxham N, Fyfe A (2018). "The Royal Society and the Prehistory of Peer Review, 1665–1965" (PDF). The Historical Journal. 61 (4): 863–889. doi:10.1017/S0018246X17000334. S2CID   164984479.
144. Moore J (2006). "Does Peer Review Mean the Same to the Public as It Does to Scientists?". Nature peer review debate. peertopeer Peer review blog. Archived from the original on September 23, 2021. Retrieved May 23, 2023– via Nature.
145. Ferguson C, Marcus A, Oransky I (2014). "Publishing: The Peer-Review Scam". Nature. 515 (7528): 480–482. Bibcode:2014Natur.515..480F. doi: 10.1038/515480a . PMID   25428481.
146. Budd JM, Sievert M, Schultz TR (1998). "Phenomena of Retraction: Reasons for Retraction and Citations to the Publications". JAMA. 280 (3): 296–297. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.296 . PMID   9676689.
147. Smith R (2006). "Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals". Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 99 (4): 178–182. doi:10.1177/014107680609900414. PMC   1420798 . PMID   16574968.
148. Ross-Hellauer T (2017). "What Is Open Peer Review? A Systematic Review". F1000Research. 6: 588. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.11369.2 . PMC   5437951 . PMID   28580134.
149. Tennant JP, Dugan JM, Graziotin D, Jacques DC, Waldner F, Mietchen D, et al. (2017). "A Multi-Disciplinary Perspective on Emergent and Future Innovations in Peer Review". F1000Research. 6: 1151. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.12037.3 . PMC   5686505 . PMID   29188015.
150. "Skeptics get a journal" (PDF)., Paul Thacker, 2005.
151. Schwarz A, Bogdanich W, Williams J (March 24, 2016). "N.F.L.'s Flawed Concussion Research and Ties to Tobacco Industry". The New York Times..
152. Wong VS, Avalos LN, Callaham ML (2019). "Industry Payments to Physician Journal Editors". PLOS ONE. 14 (2): e0211495. Bibcode:2019PLoSO..1411495W. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211495 . PMC   6366761 . PMID   30730904.
153. Weiss GJ, Davis RB (2019). "Discordant Financial Conflicts of Interest Disclosures between Clinical Trial Conference Abstract and Subsequent Publication". PeerJ. 7: e6423. doi: 10.7717/peerj.6423 . PMC   6375255 . PMID   30775185.
154. Jarvis S (September 2017). "The perils of peer review". Veterinary Record. 181 (12): 303–304. doi: 10.1136/vr.j4362 . S2CID   56853522.
155. Flaherty DK (2013). "Ghost- and Guest-Authored Pharmaceutical Industry–Sponsored Studies: Abuse of Academic Integrity, the Peer Review System, and Public Trust". The Annals of Pharmacotherapy. 47 (7–8): 1081–1083. doi:10.1345/aph.1R691. PMID   23585648. S2CID   22513775.
156. "Ghostwriting in medical literature" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on February 14, 2021. Retrieved March 17, 2021..
157. "Frequently asked questions about medical ghostwriting". June 28, 2011. Archived from the original on March 18, 2021. Retrieved March 17, 2021..
158. Vanholsbeeck M, Thacker P, Sattler S, Ross-Hellauer T, Rivera-López BS, Rice C, et al. (March 11, 2019). "Ten Hot Topics around Scholarly Publishing". Publications. 7 (2): 34. doi: 10.3390/publications7020034 .
159. Relman AS (1990). "Peer Review in Scientific Journals--What Good Is It?". Western Journal of Medicine. 153 (5): 520–522. PMC   1002603 . PMID   2260288.
160. Bravo G, Grimaldo F, López-Iñesta E, Mehmani B, Squazzoni F (2019). "The Effect of Publishing Peer Review Reports on Referee Behavior in Five Scholarly Journals". Nature Communications. 10 (1): 322. Bibcode:2019NatCo..10..322B. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-08250-2. PMC   6338763 . PMID   30659186.
161. Tennant JP (2018). "The State of the Art in Peer Review". FEMS Microbiology Letters. 365 (19). doi:10.1093/femsle/fny204. PMC   6140953 . PMID   30137294.
162. Squazzoni F, Grimaldo F, Marušić A (2017). "Publishing: Journals Could Share Peer-Review Data". Nature. 546 (7658): 352. Bibcode:2017Natur.546Q.352S. doi:10.1038/546352a. hdl: 2434/626022 . PMID   28617464. S2CID   52858966.
163. Allen H, Boxer E, Cury A, Gaston T, Graf C, Hogan B, et al. (2018), What Does Better Peer Review Look like? Definitions, Essential Areas, and Recommendations for Better Practice, doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/4MFK2
164. Fang FC, Casadevall A (2011). "Retracted Science and the Retraction Index". Infection and Immunity. 79 (10): 3855–3859. doi:10.1128/IAI.05661-11. PMC   3187237 . PMID   21825063.
165. Moylan EC, Kowalczuk MK (2016). "Why Articles Are Retracted: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study of Retraction Notices at BioMed Central". BMJ Open. 6 (11): e012047. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012047. PMC   5168538 . PMID   27881524.
166. Open Science Collaboration (2015). "Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science". Science. 349 (6251): aac4716. doi:10.1126/science.aac4716. hdl: 10722/230596 . PMID   26315443. S2CID   218065162.
167. Munafò MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DV, Button KS, Chambers CD, Percie Du Sert N, et al. (2017). "A Manifesto for Reproducible Science". Nature Human Behaviour. 1 (1): 0021. doi: 10.1038/s41562-016-0021 . PMC   7610724 . PMID   33954258.
168. Fanelli D (2018). "Opinion: Is Science Really Facing a Reproducibility Crisis, and Do We Need It To?". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 115 (11): 2628–2631. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1708272114 . PMC   5856498 . PMID   29531051.
169. Goodman SN (1994). "Manuscript Quality before and after Peer Review and Editing at Annals of Internal Medicine". Annals of Internal Medicine. 121 (1): 11–21. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-121-1-199407010-00003. PMID   8198342. S2CID   5716602.
170. Pierson CA (2018). "Peer review and journal quality". Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners. 30 (1): 1–2. doi:10.1097/JXX.0000000000000018. PMID   29757914. S2CID   46888329.
171. Caputo RK (2019). "Peer Review: A Vital Gatekeeping Function and Obligation of Professional Scholarly Practice". Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services. 100: 6–16. doi: 10.1177/1044389418808155 .
172. Siler K, Lee K, Bero L (2015). "Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 112 (2): 360–365. Bibcode:2015PNAS..112..360S. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1418218112 . PMC   4299220 . PMID   25535380.
173. Resnik DB, Elmore SA (2016). "Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors". Science and Engineering Ethics. 22 (1): 169–188. doi:10.1007/s11948-015-9625-5. PMID   25633924. S2CID   3641934.
174. Bornmann L (2011). "Scientific Peer Review". Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. 45: 197–245. doi:10.1002/aris.2011.1440450112.
175. "Cargo cult science"., Richard Feynman.
176. "Cargo Cult Science". Caltech Magazine. 1974. Archived from the original on August 24, 2019.
177. Carroll AE (November 5, 2018). "Peer Review: The Worst Way to Judge Research, Except for All the Others". The New York Times., Aaron E. Carroll, New York Times.
178. "Bucking the Big Bang"., Eric Lerner, New Scientist.
179. "Untangling Academic Publishing. A History of the Relationship between Commercial Interests, Academic Prestige and the Circulation of Research". 26.
180. Priem J, Hemminger BM (2012). "Decoupling the Scholarly Journal". Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience. 6: 19. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00019 . PMC   3319915 . PMID   22493574.
181. Bowman ND, Keene JR (2018). "A Layered Framework for Considering Open Science Practices". Communication Research Reports. 35 (4): 363–372. doi: 10.1080/08824096.2018.1513273 .
182. McKiernan EC, Bourne PE, Brown CT, Buck S, Kenall A, Lin J, et al. (2016). "Point of View: How Open Science Helps Researchers Succeed". eLife. 5. doi: 10.7554/eLife.16800 . PMC   4973366 . PMID   27387362.
183. "In peer review we (don't) trust: How peer review's filtering poses a systemic risk to science". researchers.one.
184. Brembs B (2019). "Reliable Novelty: New Should Not Trump True". PLOS Biology. 17 (2): e3000117. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000117 . PMC   6372144 . PMID   30753184.
185. Stern BM, o'Shea EK (2019). "A Proposal for the Future of Scientific Publishing in the Life Sciences". PLOS Biology. 17 (2): e3000116. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000116 . PMC   6372143 . PMID   30753179.
186. Bradley JV (1981). "Pernicious Publication Practices". Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society . 18: 31–34. doi: 10.3758/bf03333562 .
187. "British scientists exclude 'maverick' colleagues, says report" (2004) EurekAlert Public release date: August 16, 2004
188. Boudreau KJ, Guinan E, Lakhani K, Riedl C (October 2016). "Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science". Management Science. 62 (10): 2765–2783. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2015.2285. PMC   5062254 . PMID   27746512.
189. van den Besselaar P, Sandström U, Schiffbaenker H (October 2018). "Studying grant decision-making: a linguistic analysis of review reports". Scientometrics. 117 (1): 313–329. doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2848-x. ISSN   0138-9130. PMC   6132964 . PMID   30220747.
190. Osmond DH (March 1983). "Malice's wonderland: research funding and peer review". Journal of Neurobiology. 14 (2): 95–112. doi:10.1002/neu.480140202. PMID   6842193. Archived from the original on March 18, 2009. Retrieved June 24, 2015. ... they may strongly resist a rival's hypothesis that challenges their own
191. Grimaldo F, Paolucci M (March 14, 2013). "A simulation of disagreement for control of rational cheating in peer review". Advances in Complex Systems . 16 (7): 1350004. Bibcode:2005AdCS....8...15L. doi:10.1142/S0219525913500045. S2CID   2590479.
192. Petit-Zeman S (January 16, 2003). "Trial by peers comes up short". The Guardian.
193. Fang H (2011). "Peer review and over-competitive research funding fostering mainstream opinion to monopoly". Scientometrics. 87 (2): 293–301. doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0323-4. S2CID   24236419.
194. Rowland F (2002). "The peer-review process". Learned Publishing. 15 (4): 247–258. doi: 10.1087/095315102760319206 . S2CID   18368797.
195. Budden AE, Tregenza T, Aarssen LW, Koricheva J, Leimu R, Lortie CJ (January 2008). "Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors". Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 23 (1): 4–6. Bibcode:2008TEcoE..23....4B. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.008. PMID   17963996.
196. Squazzoni F, Bravo G, Farjam M, Marusic A, Mehmani B, Willis M, et al. (January 6, 2021). "Peer review and gender bias: A study on 145 scholarly journals". Science Advances. 7 (2): eabd0299. Bibcode:2021SciA....7..299S. doi:10.1126/sciadv.abd0299. ISSN   2375-2548. PMC   7787493 . PMID   33523967.
197. Akst J (January 6, 2020). "No Gender Bias in Peer Review: Study". The Scientist. Retrieved February 6, 2021.
198. Yirka B (January 7, 2020). "Analysis: Peer review process unlikely to be primary cause of gender publishing inequalities in scholarly journals". phys.org. Retrieved February 6, 2021.
199. Brainard J (March 1, 2021). "The $450 question: Should journals pay peer reviewers?". Science. doi: 10.1126/science.abh3175 .
200. "Advances.in". October 9, 2022.
201. Suber P (September 2, 2007). "Will open access undermine peer review?". SPARC Open Access Newsletter.
202. Björk BC, Solomon D (2012). "Open access versus subscription journals: A comparison of scientific impact". BMC Medicine. 10: 73. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-10-73 . PMC   3398850 . PMID   22805105.
203. Afifi, M. "Reviewing the "Letter-to-editor" section in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2000–2004". Bulletin of the World Health Organization. Archived from the original on August 6, 2006.
204. Lee K (2006). "Increasing accountability". Nature. doi:10.1038/nature05007 (inactive November 2, 2024).
205. Baxt WG, Waeckerle JF, Berlin JA, Callaham ML (September 1998). "Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance". Annals of Emergency Medicine. 32 (3 Pt 1): 310–317. doi: 10.1016/S0196-0644(98)70006-X . PMID   9737492.
206. A case of peer review fraud in Tumor Biology papers (Retrieved April 25, 2017)
207. Ferguson C, Marcus A, Oransky I (November 2014). "Publishing: The peer-review scam". Nature. 515 (7528): 480–482. Bibcode:2014Natur.515..480F. doi: 10.1038/515480a . PMID   25428481. S2CID   4447250.
208. "COPE statement on inappropriate manipulation of peer review processes". publicationethics.org. December 19, 2014.
209. "Inappropriate manipulation of peer review". BioMed Central blog. March 26, 2015.
210. Callaway E (2015). "Faked peer reviews prompt 64 retractions". Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2015.18202. S2CID   182578881.
211. "Imposters hijack journal's peer review process to publish substandard papers". Chemistry World. January 18, 2021. Retrieved January 19, 2021.
212. Pinna N, Clavel G, Roco MC (2020). "The Journal of Nanoparticle Research victim of an organized rogue editor network!". Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 22 (12): 376. Bibcode:2020JNR....22..376P. doi: 10.1007/s11051-020-05094-0 . ISSN   1388-0764. S2CID   229182904.
213. "Historians on the Hot Seat". History News Network. April 23, 2010.
214. Weiss R (June 9, 2005). "Many scientists admit to misconduct: Degrees of deception vary in poll". Washington Post.
215. Michaels D (2006). "Politicizing Peer Review: Scientific Perspective". In Wagner W, Steinzor R (eds.). Rescuing Science from Politics: Regulation and the Distortion of Scientific Research. Cambridge University Press. p. 224. ISBN   978-0-521-85520-4.
216. Soon W, Baliunas S (2003). "Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years". Climate Research. 23: 89–110. Bibcode:2003ClRes..23...89S. doi: 10.3354/cr023089 .
217. Tai MM (February 1994). "A mathematical model for the determination of total area under glucose tolerance and other metabolic curves". Diabetes Care. 17 (2): 152–154. doi:10.2337/diacare.17.2.152. PMID   8137688. S2CID   42761923.
218. Knapp A (2011). "Apparently, Calculus Was Invented In 1994". Forbes.
219. Purgathofer W. "Beware of VIDEA!". tuwien.ac.at. Technical University of Vienna. Retrieved April 29, 2014.
220. Dougherty MV, Harsting P, Friedman R (2009). "40 Cases of Plagiarism" (PDF). Bulletin de Philosophie Médiévale . 51: 350–391.
221. Dougherty MV (2017). "Correcting the Scholarly Record in the Aftermath of Plagiarism: A Snapshot of Current-Day Publishing Practices in Philosophy". Metaphilosophy. 48 (3): 258–283. doi:10.1111/meta.12241.
222. Holliday VT, Daulton TL, Bartlein PJ, Boslough MB, Breslawski RP, Fisher AE, et al. (July 26, 2023). "Comprehensive refutation of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis (YDIH)". Earth-Science Reviews. 247: 104502. Bibcode:2023ESRv..24704502H. doi: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2023.104502 .
223. Rennie D (July 7, 2016). "Let's make peer review scientific". Nature. 535 (7610): 31–33. Bibcode:2016Natur.535...31R. doi: 10.1038/535031a . PMID   27383970. S2CID   4408375.
224. Slavov N (November 11, 2015). "Making the most of peer review". eLife. 4: e12708. doi: 10.7554/eLife.12708 . ISSN   2050-084X. PMC   4641509 . PMID   26559758.
225. Couzin-Frankel J (September 18, 2018). "'Journalologists' use scientific methods to study academic publishing. Is their work improving science?". Science. doi: 10.1126/science.aav4758 .
226. Cosgrove A, Cheifet B (November 27, 2018). "Transparent peer review trial: the results". Genome Biology. 19 (1): 206. doi: 10.1186/s13059-018-1584-0 . ISSN   1474-760X. PMC   6260718 . PMID   30482224.
227. Patterson M, Schekman R (June 26, 2018). "A new twist on peer review". eLife. 7: e36545. doi: 10.7554/eLife.36545 . ISSN   2050-084X. PMC   6019064 . PMID   29944117.
228. Ross-Hellauer T (August 31, 2017). "What is open peer review? A systematic review". F1000Research. 6: 588. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.11369.2 . ISSN   2046-1402. PMC   5437951 . PMID   28580134.
229. Else H (November 3, 2022). "eLife won't reject papers once they are under review — what researchers think". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-022-03534-6. ISSN   0028-0836. PMID   36329143. S2CID   253302170.
230. Dyke G (2023). "Interview with Dr. Neeraj Kumar Sethiya, the newest ReviewerCredits ambassador".
231. Schiermeier Q (2017). "Monument to peer review unveiled in Moscow". Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2017.22060.

Further reading

• "Peer review debate". Nature. June 2006.
• Tennant JP, Dugan JM, Graziotin D, Jacques DC, Waldner F, Mietchen D, et al. (2017). "A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review". F1000Research. 6: 1151. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.12037.3 . PMC   5686505 . PMID   29188015.
• Fitzpatrick K (2011). Planned Obsolescence: Publishing, Technology, and the Future of the Academy. New York: New York University Press. ISBN   978-0-8147-2788-1. OCLC   759000874.
• Paltridge B (2017). The Discourse of Peer Review: reviewing submissions to academic journals. London: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/978-1-137-48736-0. ISBN   978-1-137-48735-3.
• Rose S (August 2019). "Peer review in art history". Burlington Magazine. 161 (1397): 621–625.