Peer Review and Scientific Publication at a Crossroads

Abstract

The way science is assessed, published, and disseminated has markedly changed since 1986, when the launch of a new Congress focused on the science of peer review was first announced. There have been 9 International Peer Review Congresses since 1989, typically running on an every-4-year cycle, and most recently in 2022 after a 1-year delay due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 1 Here, we announce that the 10th International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication will be held in Chicago, Illinois, on September 3-5, 2025.The congresses have been enormously productive, incentivizing and publicizing important empirical work into how science is produced, evaluated, published, and disseminated. 2-4 However, peer review and scientific publication are currently at a crossroads and their future more difficult than ever to predict. After decades of experience and research in these fields, we have learned a lot about a wide range of aspects of peer review and scientific publication. [2][3][4][5] We have accumulated a large body of empirical evidence on how systems function and how they can malfunction. There is also growing evidence on how to make peer review, publication, and dissemination processes more efficient, fair, open, transparent, reliable, and equitable. [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] Experimental randomized evaluations of peer review practices are only a small part of the literature, but their numbers have been growing since the early trials of anonymized peer review. [16][17][18][19][20][21][22] Research has revealed a rapidly growing list of biases, inefficiencies, and threats to the trustworthiness of published research, some now well recognized, others deserving of more attention. 2,3 Moreover, practices continue to change and diversify in response to new needs, tools, and technologies as well as the persistent "publish or perish" pressures on scientists-as-authors.With the continued evolution of electronic platforms and tools-most recently the emergence and use of large language models and artificial intelligence (AI)-peer review and scientific publication are rapidly evolving to address new opportunities and threats. 23,24 Moreover, a lot of money is at stake; scientific publishing is a huge market with one of the highest profit margins among all business enterprises, and it supports a massive biomedical and broader science economy. Many stakeholders try to profit from or influence the scientific literature in ways that do not necessarily serve science or enhance its benefits to society. The number of science journal titles and articles is steadily increasing 25 ; many millions of scientists coauthor scientific papers, and perverse reward systems do not help improve the quality of this burgeoning Opinion

Why all clinical guideline recommendations are ‘Conditional’

“…9 The pandemic demonstrated that current technology has transformed the possible speed of research production, synthesis and dissemination. 11 Given the prospect of such an acceleration, the acceptability of a 5-or 10-year delay in producing a 'strong' clinically important recommendation is unlikely to hold.…”

GPT for RCTs?: Using AI to determine adherence to reporting guidelines

“…Using reporting guidelines, such as the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), can improve trial reporting standards [6–8], but adherence is often poor [9]. Following recent calls to evaluate the role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in facilitating editorial and peer review decisions [10], we assessed how well an AI model could determine reporting guideline adherence in clinical trial reports.…”

Peer Review in Pharmacovigilance: Lens on Disproportionality Analysis

“…The 10th International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication, announced to be held in Chicago, Illinois, on 3-5 September 2025, will be a great opportunity to share proposals and solutions to make peer review, [31]. We welcome contribution from interested journals dealing with pharmacovigilance to pursue this call towards an effective innovative model of peer review.…”