search.noResults

search.searching

note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
News


Peer review 2030: report looks to the future


In order to effect real, industry-wide improvements to the peer review process, publishers, researchers, funders and institutions need to be willing to experiment with different models, encourage more diversity in the reviewer pool, utilise artificial intelligence (AI) and support training and mentoring for peer reviewers, according to a report by BioMed Central and Digital Science. What Might Peer Review Look


Like in 2030? examines how peer review can be improved for future generations of academics and offers key recommendations to the academic community. The report is based on the lively and


progressive sessions at the SpotOn London conference, which was held at Wellcome Collection Conference Centre in November 2016. The report includes a collection of


reflections on the history of peer review, current issues such as sustainability and ethics, while also casting a look into the future, including advances such as preprint servers and AI applications. The contributions cover perspectives from the researcher, a librarian, publishers and others.


the power of great peer review. By turning peer review into a measurable research output, researchers now have evidence of their reviewing contributions influencing published science. With better incentives for researchers to peer review, Publons aims to improve the quality and efficiency of both peer review and scholarly communication. Preston said: ‘SAGE was one of the first elite publishers to partner with Publons and commit to changing the way we approach and recognise the critical role of peer review in scholarly communication. We’re thrilled to not only expand our offering to more SAGE reviewers, but also to continue working with an industry leader to keep innovating in peer review.’


www.researchinformation.info | @researchinfo


Rachel Burley, publishing director at BioMed Central, explained: ‘Although frequently criticised, peer review still plays an important role in validating research results and advancing discovery. We want to start conversations with all stakeholders to find progressive ways of improving peer review for researchers globally and across all disciplines. We’ve published this report to initiate those conversations and we’re calling on the research community to take part, and take on the challenge.’ The report puts forward BioMed


Central’s recommendations on how to build on recent advances and find feasible and innovative ways of improving peer review in a rapidly evolving academic landscape.


Recommendations include: l Experiment with different and new


models of peer review, particularly those that increase transparency;


l Find and invent new ways of identifying, verifying and inviting peer reviewers, focusing on closely matching expertise with the research being reviewed to


Our last issue looked in depth at open peer review


increase uptake. AI could be a valuable tool in this;


l Work towards cross-publisher solutions that improve efficiency and benefit all stakeholders. Portable peer review has not taken off at any scale, but could make the publishing process more efficient for all involved;


l Encourage more diversity in the reviewer pool (including early career researchers, researchers from different regions, and women). Publishers, in particular, could raise awareness and investigate new ways of sourcing female peer reviewers;


l Invest in reviewer training programmes to make sure that the next generation of reviewers is equipped to provide valuable feedback within recognised guidelines;


l Identify ways for funders, institutions and publishers to work together to recognise reviewers and acknowledge their work;


l Use technology to support and enhance the peer review process, including finding automated ways to identify inconsistencies that are difficult for reviewers to spot. BioMed Central introduced open peer review in 1999, and continues to experiment with new models, such as results-free peer review, exploring ways in which to improve the process of peer review, and in some cases, affect radical change to methods, processes and supporting systems.


June/July 2017 Research Information 31


Jia Li /Shutterstock.com


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44