Peer review as a science evaluation tool: main tensions and some alternative proposals

Abstract

Peer review plays a crucial role in scientific and academic research. However, the different ways that have been implemented have been criticized by the international scientific community. This essay aims to identify the main questionings raised about peer review as a science assessment tool and propose alternative solutions to these discussions. The field of study from which the research was approached was science and technology evaluation studies, a qualitative methodology of exploratory and descriptive scope was applied that included the search, compilation and analysis of various sources of scientific information in English, Spanish and Portuguese languages that addressed the proposed categories. A brief overview of peer review as a science assessment tool is presented, along with a summary of the main types of peer review, as well as their advantages and disadvantages. The text addresses the questionings and biases present in the peer review system that can perpetuate existing scientific paradigms, discourage novel ideas, and reinforce systemic inequalities within academia. Although measures to address these biases have been put in place, peer review remains a human-driven process and is not entirely free of bias or limitations. A series of alternatives are proposed to improve the peer review process with the purpose of strengthening the quality and reliability of peer review, through transparency, diversity and collaboration in scientific research.