{"id":3994,"date":"2022-09-21T09:12:03","date_gmt":"2022-09-21T09:12:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/whats-new-in-peer-review-initiatives-by-the-academic-community\/"},"modified":"2025-11-25T16:04:44","modified_gmt":"2025-11-25T10:34:44","slug":"whats-new-in-peer-review-initiatives-by-the-academic-community","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/whats-new-in-peer-review-initiatives-by-the-academic-community","title":{"rendered":"What\u2019s new in peer review? Initiatives by the academic community"},"content":{"rendered":"

The increasing number of publications and journals is widening the chasm between the number of peer reviewers required and the number of reviewers willing to review. Many researchers reject reviewing opportunities because they are pressed for time and need to meet their own publication and funding requirements. The burden to perform competent peer reviews, therefore, often rests on a small number of academics, leading to agonizing waits for authors hoping to have their papers published. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Moreover, expectations from peer reviewers themselves can vary by journal, discipline, and region, and with other changes in the academic and publishing landscape. All of this places pressure on the current peer review system and may call into question the effectiveness of the process in maintaining the <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>quality and integrity of published research<\/span><\/span><\/span>.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

These challenges notwithstanding, the integral role of peer review in<\/span><\/span><\/span> academia cannot be denied. Quality assurance in some form or the other will always be a crucial cog in the machine of scholarship, and the academic community is actively trying out new models, signaling hope and change in the way peer review is conducted.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Novel peer review models<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The formats of scholarly dissemination keep evolving. From print-only, subscription-based traditional journals, we have now moved to an era of digital publication and open access (OA). There is a thrust toward open science and open data, particularly in the face of global crises such as COVID-19 and climate change. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In response, peer review models have not remained static. For example, during the current pandemic, academic journals followed fast-track systems for COVID-19\u2013related content to hasten review and publication1<\/sup>.Academic publishing and communications organizations such as PLOS<\/i> and eLife<\/i> created a Rapid Reviewer Initiative to maximize the efficiency of peer review of COVID-19 research. This was an unprecedented and \u201cuncommon moment of scholarly publishers collaborating to gather useful insights on the performance of the scholarly communication system.\u201d2<\/sup> Meanwhile, preprints provide unique opportunities for open and effective peer review. The<\/span><\/span><\/span> last few years have witnessed a spurt in new forms and ideas for peer review to meet different evolving needs and expectations. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>Let\u2019s look at some notable developments in the last few years.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Open peer review<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/i><\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Open peer review (OPR) aims to make reviews and publishing decisions more transparent. There is no clear definition for OPR, but it broadly refers to a peer review model wherein elements of the peer review process are made publicly available before or after publication. This system hinges on combinations of the following:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Open identities: <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/i>Reviewer identity is known.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Open reports:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/i> Peer review reports are published alongside the relevant article.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Open participation:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/i> The paper is open to scrutiny and feedback by the community.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

OPR in various flavors has been implemented by several journals and scholarly platforms. The<\/i> <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>EMBO Journal<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/i> allows pre-publication interaction among reviewers, who comment on each other\u2019s reports before the editor makes a decision.<\/span><\/span><\/span> Frontiers<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/i> journals have an interactive collaboration stage involving the authors, reviewers, and Associate Editor, which enables quicker arrival at a consensus.3<\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Making review reports open means that the research community can evaluate the review process. Open review reports are also amenable to reviewer recognition (see later in this article).<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Pros<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n