Feature
An ever- changing landscape
From artificial intelligence to transparency, peer review’s journey is full of twists and turns, reportsRebecca Pool
It’s been nearly two years since some 90 editors, publishers, funders and researchers gathered at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute to discuss innovations in peer review. Organised by Wellcome, ASAPbio and HHMI, the meeting’s hot topics included transparency and recognition. By the end of the event, the majority
of participants had voted in favour of publishing all peer review content and author responses alongside final manuscripts, although not necessarily reviewer names. Perceived benefits to the community included greater reviewer recognition, increased reviewer and editorial accountability and the opportunity for students and early career researchers to glean valuable knowledge on the peer review process. Today, the topic of transparency in peer
review is still burning brightly, with myriad publishers from BMJ to Elsevier and EMBO Press to MDPI committing to the process. Following a 2018 trial, editors Barbara Cheifet and Andrew Cosgrove of Springer Nature’s Genome Biology, claimed that transparent peer review hadn’t affected the speed of outcome of the peer review process and quickly adopted transparency.
www.researchinformation.info | @researchinfo
Just last year, PLOS announced that all of its journals were ‘open’ for published peer review.
But embracing transparency isn’t
necessarily straightforward. Many publishers have faced a number of practical difficulties to adopt such models, hindered by complex and established journal workflows. Given this, Publons and ScholarOne, both part of the Web Of Science Group and home to peer review and manuscript submission systems, joined forces with US-based publisher, Wiley, to develop a scalable, open peer review workflow to ease this process. The results have been promising.
As Tiago Barros, product leader at Publons, recalled: ‘Wiley has thousands of journals and was struggling to offer transparent peer review at scale. ‘[The publisher] was most used to
“Embracing
operate single- or double-blind peer g
transparency isn’t necessarily
straightforward” February/March 2020 Research Information 5
Piotr Krzeslak/
Shutterstock.com
marcin jucha/
Shutterstock.com
Piotr Piatrouski/
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
