The tragedy of the common reviewers: the peer review process

Albuquerque, Ulysses Paulino

doi:10.1590/s0102-695x2011005000036

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The papers were classified and the results summarized according to content similarity. 4. Evaluation of studies included in the review: Based on the study ranking, the publications were evaluated based on their objectives, method, results and conclusion.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The peer review process involves experts in the research area who are not part of the study. Hence, it can be considered an important extension of the science process (4,5) . This process makes it easier for journals to improve the quality, precision, reading and credibility of contents for publication, as well as to comply with established publication standards and ethical and legal guidelines (6,7) .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

O processo de revisão por pares: uma revisão integrativa de literatura

Jenal

Vituri

Ezaias³

et al. 2012

Acta paul. enferm.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the available evidence in the literature about the process of peer review for scientific articles in the area of health. Methods: An integrative review of the literature, which was conducted using searches of databases of Latin American Literature and of the Caribbean Health Sciences, National Library of Medicine, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. A total of 12 studies was analyzed. Results: It was shown that many criticisms of the process exist because of its subjectivity, but that it is still believed there is a need for it. Conclusion: This process is essential for the diffusion of knowledge, as an essential step in the judgment of scientific manuscripts; however, it is important to consider changes to reduce subjectivity to ensure credibility of the process. Keywords: Peer review; Nursing research RESUMO Objetivo: Avaliar as evidências disponíveis na literatura sobre o processo de revisão por pares de artigos científicos na área da saúde. Métodos: Revisão integrativa de literatura, na qual foram realizadas buscas nas bases de dados da Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde, National Library of Medicine, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online e Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. Um total de 12 estudos foi analisado. Resultados: Foi demonstrado que existem muitas críticas ao processo em razão de sua subjetividade, porém acredita-se na necessidade dos mesmos. Conclusão: Este processo é imprescindível para a difusão do conhecimento, sendo uma etapa essencial no julgamento de manuscritos científicos, no entanto, considera-se importante que se façam mudanças no sentido de reduzir a subjetividade para garantir credibilidade ao processo. Descritores: Revisão por pares; Pesquisa em enfermagem RESUMEN Objetivo: Evaluar las evidencias disponibles en la literatura sobre el proceso de revisión por pares de artículos científicos en el área de la salud. Métodos: Se trata de una revisión integrativa de literatura, en la cual fueron realizadas búsquedas en las bases de datos de la Literatura Latinoamericana y del Caribe en Ciencias de la Salud, National Library of Medicine, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online y Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. Fueron analizados un total de 12 estudios. Resultados: Fue demostrado que existen muchas críticas al proceso en razón de su subjetividad, sin embargo se cree en la necesidad de los mismos. Conclusión: Este proceso es imprescindible para la difusión del conocimiento, siendo una etapa esencial en la deliberación de manuscritos científicos, entre tanto, se considera importante que se hagan cambios en el sentido de reducir la subjetividad para garantizar la credibilidad al proceso.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

O processo de revisão por pares: uma revisão integrativa de literatura

Jenal

Vituri

Ezaias³

et al. 2012

Acta paul. enferm.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…© 2014 Museu de Ciències Naturals de Barcelona ISSN: 1578-665 X eISSN: 2014-928 X Discussion of shortcomings in the peer review process and editorial practices within scientific journals likely started with publication of the first journal and employment of the first editor. Recently, multiple aspects of this topic have been described in publications dealing with ecology and evolutionary biology (EEB) (Hochberg et al, 2009;Mesnard, 2010;Statzner & Resh, 2010;Albuquerque, 2011;Rohr & Martin, 2012a) and the subject has received considerable attention in the biomedical research community (Smith, 2006;Tite & Schroter, 2007). Multiple critical issues of the peer review process have been raised including: 1) the difficulties of finding good reviewers*, 2) the lack of reward for reviewing, 3) the increased number of manuscripts submitted to journals exacerbating issue 1, and 4) negative institutional policies reduce incentives for participating in the editorial process.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving the reviewing process in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology

Grossman¹

2014

Anim. Biodiv. Conserv.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I discuss current issues in reviewing and editorial practices in ecology and evolutionary biology and suggest possible solutions for current problems. The reviewing crisis is unlikely to change unless steps are taken by journals to provide greater inclusiveness and incentives to reviewers. In addition, both journals and institutions should reduce their emphasis on publication numbers (least publishable units) and impact factors and focus instead on article synthesis and quality which will require longer publications. Academic and research institutions should consider reviewing manuscripts and editorial positions an important part of a researcher’s professional activities and reward them accordingly. Rewarding reviewers either monetarily or via other incentives such as free journal subscriptions may encourage participation in the reviewing process for both profit and non–profit journals. Reviewer performance will likely be improved by measures that increase inclusiveness, such as sending reviews and decision letters to reviewers. Journals may be able to evaluate the efficacy of their reviewing process by comparing citations of rejected but subsequently published papers with those published within the journal at similar times. Finally, constructive reviews: 1) identify important shortcomings and suggest solutions when possible, 2) distinguish trivial from non–trivial problems, and 3) include editor’s evaluations of the reviews including identification of trivial versus substantive comments (i.e., those that must be addressed).

show abstract

Ants-Review: A Privacy-Oriented Protocol for Incentivized Open Peer Reviews on Ethereum

Trovó

Massari

2021

Euro-Par 2020: Parallel Processing Workshops

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peer review is a necessary and essential quality control step for scientific publications but lacks proper incentives. Indeed, the process, which is very costly in terms of time and intellectual investment, not only is not remunerated by the journals but it is also not openly recognized by the academic community as a relevant scientific output for a researcher. Therefore, scientific dissemination is affected in timeliness, quality and fairness. Here, to solve this issue, we propose a blockchain-based incentive system that rewards scientists for peer reviewing other scientists’ work and that builds up trust and reputation. We designed a privacy-oriented protocol of smart contracts called Ants-Review that allows authors to issue a bounty for open anonymous peer reviews on Ethereum. If requirements are met, peer reviews will be accepted and paid by the approver proportionally to their assessed quality. To promote ethical behaviour and inclusiveness the system implements a gamified mechanism that allows the whole community to evaluate the peer reviews and vote for the best ones.

show abstract

The tragedy of the common reviewers: the peer review process

Cited by 5 publications

References 4 publications

O processo de revisão por pares: uma revisão integrativa de literatura

O processo de revisão por pares: uma revisão integrativa de literatura

Improving the reviewing process in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology

Ants-Review: A Privacy-Oriented Protocol for Incentivized Open Peer Reviews on Ethereum

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About