Peer review and journal quality

Ten hot topics around scholarly publishing

“…Однако чаще этот центральный научный компонент используется для административных целей: сохранения «чистоты рядов» (гейткипинга), фильтрации и сигнализации. Считается, что его функция -сохранения качества научной литературы -необходима [58,59]. Утверждается, что без фильтра рецензирования научная литература станет свалкой для ненадежных результатов, исследователи не смогут отделить информацию от шума и научный прогресс замедлится [60,61].…”

The state of the art in peer review

“…Peer review is purported to serve many functions, including quality control as a screening mechanism, legitimisation of scientific research and the self-regulation of scientific communities. As such, in modern academia peer review remains critical in defining professional advancement and the hierarchical structure of research institutes (Fyfe et al 2017 ; Moore et al 2017 ), and is generally held in high regard across research communities (Goodman 1994 ; Bedeian 2003 ; Ware, 2011 , 2015 ; Pierson 2018 ; Jutta andFredrik 2016 ).…”

“…Despite the critical importance of peer review in scholarly communication, and considerable recent effort to understand and improve the process, there remain numerous key issues. Some of the main ones include: A lack of adequate training and support for researchers in best practices for how to perform peer review (or respond to peer reviews) (Schroter et al 2004 ); The length of time taken for the peer review process (Bornmann and Daniel 2010 ; Lyman 2013 ); That valuable contextual information is often lost as review reports remain unpublished (Walker and Rocha da Silva 2015 ; Ross-Hellauer 2017a ); What the best operational processes should be for different research communities (Bruce et al 2016 ); A general lack of rigorous evidence into the functionality of different elements of peer review, including quality (Lee and Moher 2017 ; Squazzoni, Brezis and Marušić 2017 ; Squazzoni, Grimaldo and Marušić 2017 ); The relationship between peer review quality and journal quality (Pierson 2018 ); Core competences and standards for editors engaged in peer review (Moher et al 2017 ). Any form of strategy or consensus on how to address some of the major criticisms levied at peer review (Walker and Rocha da Silva 2015 ; Tennant et al 2017 ; Thomas 2018 ).…”

Ten Hot Topics around Scholarly Publishing

“…More often, however, this central scholarly component is coopted for administrative goals: gatekeeping, filtering, and signaling. Its gatekeeping role is believed to be necessary to maintain the quality of the scientific literature [58,59]. Furthermore, some have argued that without the filter provided by peer review, the literature risks becoming a dumping ground for unreliable results, researchers will not be able to separate signal from noise, and scientific progress will slow [60,61].…”