No abstract

Managing the peer review process is one of the major attractions and benefits of the current publisher-driven publishing environment. Would it be possible to maintain peer review in different system—perhaps one where peer review happens at the institutional level, or in an online-review environment? How? What is really needed from peer review, what are the reform options (and what do we already know about the options that have been tried)?

Margaret Morgan, who died on 20 December 2017, was a UKSG stalwart and an enthusiastic member of the Main Committee and Editorial Board for what was then Serials. She would, however, be raising her eyebrows at the thought of being the subject of a tribute in the pages of Insights, as she most definitely did not like any fuss or to be in the limelight. She was also truly a pioneer of the dark arts of international data interchange standards, serving on NISO's committee on serials data standards and as a founder member of ICEDIS.

No abstract

The OSI2016 Peer Review workgroup focused on peer review in the context of open scholarship. The group agreed that greater openness and transparency would improve accountability, minimize bias, and encourage collaboration, but did not underestimate the challenges of openness, nor the variation in readiness across disciplines and publishing models. The group recommended facilitation of peer review outside the traditional publication processfor example, in the context of preprint servers and after publication-with incentives for broad participation. These incentives need to include a cultural shift in recognition of peer review as a valid activity contributing to career progression.