Current and Evolving Models of Peer Review

Abstract

Abstract:New models of scientific publishing and new ways of practicing peer review have injected a recent dynamism into the scholarly communication system. In this article, we delineate the context of the traditional peer review model, reflect upon some of the first experiences with open peer review and forecast some of the challenges that new models for peer review will have to meet. Our findings suggest that the peer review function has the potential to be divorced from the journal system, so that the responsibility to judge the significance of a paper may no longer fall exclusively to formal reviewers, but may be assessed by the whole readership community.

Ten Points for High-Quality Statistical Reporting and Data Presentation

“…In recent years, several journals have tried to improve peer review processes [55]. Their efforts have been focused on introducing openness and transparency to the models of peer review [56].…”

“…Their efforts have been focused on introducing openness and transparency to the models of peer review [56]. New strategies in peer review might help to address persistent statistical reporting and data presentation issues in the medical literature [55]. Software algorithms and scanners have been developed to assess internal consistency and validity of statistical tests in academic writing [57].…”

The social value of anonymity on campus: a study of the decline of Yik Yak

“…Research and commentary to date has tended to focus on the place and value of anonymity within assessment and evaluation practice (Li 2017;Raes, Vanderhoven, and Schellens 2015), peer review (Fresco-Santalla and Hernández-Pérez 2014; Bali 2015), research ethics (Moosa 2013;Kelly 2009), and sometimes on teaching methods (Bell 2001;Chester and Gwynne 1998), but rarely on online communities of students or its potential value for peer networks. While there is quite a significant body of literature looking at anonymity within computermediated communication and on social media (Scott and Orlikowski 2014;Ellison et al 2016;Christopherson 2007), it is relatively rare to find such research specifically focusing on universities and student social networks. The general direction of anonymity studies in higher education has been to assume its value for some areas of activity (peer review, assessment and evaluation, research ethics, whistleblowing) while vilifying it for others (teaching, peer communication, social media).…”

Peer Review: We Can't Do Without You

“…Some argue that peer review can have inherent bias and that having review open to the entire scholarly community through letters to the editor, blogs, or other online forums might be more appropriate (Fresco‐Santalla & Hernandez‐Perez, ). This potentially quicker and more transparent review is one of the benefits cited by open‐access journals.…”

“…Peer review does not ensure quality; it is just one measure of quality control. Suggestions for improving the peer review process include having open peer review, in which reviews are signed, and having greater transparency between readers and the review process, with open prepublication review frequently employed and linked to post‐publication articles (Fresco‐Santalla & Hernandez‐Perez, ).…”