The changing forms and expectations of peer review

Abstract

The quality and integrity of the scientific literature have recently become the subject of heated debate. Due to an apparent increase in cases of scientific fraud and irreproducible research, some have claimed science to be in a state of crisis. A key concern in this debate has been the extent to which science is capable of self-regulation. Among various mechanisms, the peer review system in particular is considered an essential gatekeeper of both quality and sometimes even integrity in science.However, the allocation of responsibility for integrity to the peer review system is fairly recent and remains controversial. In addition, peer review currently comes in a wide variety of forms, developed in the expectation they can address specific problems and concerns in science publishing. At present, there is a clear need for a systematic analysis of peer review forms and the concerns underpinning them, especially considering a wave of experimentation fuelled by internet technologies and their promise to improve research integrity and reporting.We describe the emergence of current peer review forms by reviewing the scientific literature on peer review and by adding recent developments based on information from editors and publishers. We analyse the rationale for developing new review forms and discuss how they have been implemented in the current system. Finally, we give a systematisation of the range of discussed peer review forms. We pay detailed attention to the emergence of the expectation that peer review can maintain ‘the integrity of science’s published record’, demonstrating that this leads to tensions in the academic debate about the responsibilities and abilities of the peer review system.

Pandemic Publishing: Medical journals drastically speed up their publication process for Covid-19

“…However, once such information has been gathered, it needs to be disseminated to all those potentially in the position to use it, as quick as possible. Traditionally, scholarly journals have been one of the main outlets to facilitate this (Horbach & Halffman, 2018).…”

Plagiarism in Brazil: A perspective of 25,000 PhD holders across the sciences

“…This real-case scenario is not simple, as it involves a delicate situation of misappropriation of research material in the context of peer review, but the patterns of response somewhat reflect a current trend in the publication arena: discussions on the correction of the literature and publication ethics are still led by the bio and health sciences ( 26-28, 54-56 ). However, irrespective of this imbalance in the publication context, a question brought up by Q4 , Q5a and Q5b, Section II is that attitudes toward plagiarism of text for PhD holders associated with the Health Sciences, Human Sciences and Social Sciences, and with Linguistics, Language & Literature and Arts would be stricter when it comes to retractions for textual plagiarism.…”

This Paper Is an Artefact: On Open Science Practices in Design Science Research Using Registered Reports

“…The traditional route to disseminating research papers has been through academic journals or conferences that act as gatekeepers through their peer review and copy editing processes [13]. However, with the advent of the Internet and digital technologies, researchers can take much more control of the dissemination of their academic outputs themselves [8,13]. It is becoming more and more common that researchers upload versions of their research outputs to specialised preprint servers such as OSF Preprint or arXiv, making outputs publicly available for others to view even before these works underwent traditional peer review [8].…”

“…However, with the advent of the Internet and digital technologies, researchers can take much more control of the dissemination of their academic outputs themselves [8,13]. It is becoming more and more common that researchers upload versions of their research outputs to specialised preprint servers such as OSF Preprint or arXiv, making outputs publicly available for others to view even before these works underwent traditional peer review [8]. This allows researchers to quickly disseminate information to the research community and receive feedback that can be implemented to improve the work before submitting to a journal or conference [13].…”