Accessible booklet introducing the concept of peer review
The Pros and Cons of Peer Review
Article discussing the benefits and disadvantages of an open system of peer review
Ten Considerations for Open Peer Review
Perspectives from authors, publishers and reviewers
This resource is licenced under a CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 licence by Claire Sewell, the Office of Scholarly Communication, Cambridge University Libraries.
Throughout this unit we have touched on peer review as part of the publication process but what exactly is it and why is it important?
Peer review is a quality control system for published research which looks at the individual publication, its suitability to be published in a particular title and assesses the strength of the underlying research. Experts in the subject of the research are invited to comment on the work and assess it according to a pre-defined rubric. They will be asked questions such as if the title accurately reflects the content, the quality of the spelling and grammar, if the work reads well and if the methods and interpretations used are sound. Peer reviewed works – particularly articles – have been considered the gold standard in publishing for a long time. In the days with easy online access for many it is easy to publish something to a large audience but if it has been through a rigorous assessment process by peers before publication this is seen as an endorsement.
For a long time peer review has been the main way in which scholarly publications are assessed by the community but the process is not without issues. The video below summarises some of the main problems with traditional peer review:
To counteract these problems and as part of the general move toward open research there have been calls for a system of open peer review.
This aims to make the peer review process as a whole more transparent, including having reviewers sign their names to their comments instead of being anonymous. This helps to make the process more accountable and allows review authors to receive credit for their work which they can add to their academic profile. In recent years a number of platforms have been launched to help researchers do this including Publons and PubPeer.
Demystifying the process of peer review not only helps to deal with the issues of the present system but it also makes it more accessible to the next generation of researchers who can become the peer reviewers of the future. As they have developed their research skills in a more open environment this will hopefully help to ensure that these skills are carried on to the next generation.
Think about the concept of open peer review. Do you think this approach will help to incentivise researchers to conduct reviews or will it mean that people are scared to voice their true opinion?
