↓ Skip to main content


A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review

Overview of attention for 3 related versions published in F1000Research.
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

2 news outlets
17 blogs
592 tweeters
2 peer review sites
6 Facebook pages
3 Wikipedia pages
6 Google+ users
1 Q&A thread
A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review
Published in
F1000 Research, November 2017
DOI 10.12688/f1000research.12037.3
Pubmed ID

Jonathan P. Tennant, Jonathan M. Dugan, Daniel Graziotin, Damien C. Jacques, François Waldner, Daniel Mietchen, Yehia Elkhatib, Lauren B. Collister, Christina K. Pikas, Tom Crick, Paola Masuzzo, Anthony Caravaggi, Devin R. Berg, Kyle E. Niemeyer, Tony Ross-Hellauer, Sara Mannheimer, Lillian Rigling, Daniel S. Katz, Bastian Greshake Tzovaras, Josmel Pacheco-Mendoza, Nazeefa Fatima, Marta Poblet, Marios Isaakidis, Dasapta Erwin Irawan, Sébastien Renaut, Christopher R. Madan, Lisa Matthias, Jesper Nørgaard Kjær, Daniel Paul O'Donnell, Cameron Neylon, Sarah Kearns, Manojkumar Selvaraju, Julien Colomb


Peer review of research articles is a core part of our scholarly communication system. In spite of its importance, the status and purpose of peer review is often contested. What is its role in our modern digital research and communications infrastructure? Does it perform to the high standards with which it is generally regarded? Studies of peer review have shown that it is prone to bias and abuse in numerous dimensions, frequently unreliable, and can fail to detect even fraudulent research. With the advent of Web technologies, we are now witnessing a phase of innovation and experimentation in our approaches to peer review. These developments prompted us to examine emerging models of peer review from a range of disciplines and venues, and to ask how they might address some of the issues with our current systems of peer review. We examine the functionality of a range of social Web platforms, and compare these with the traits underlying a viable peer review system: quality control, quantified performance metrics as engagement incentives, and certification and reputation. Ideally, any new systems will demonstrate that they out-perform current models while avoiding as many of the biases of existing systems as possible. We conclude that there is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages. We also propose a novel hybrid platform model that, at least partially, resolves many of the technical and social issues associated with peer review, and can potentially disrupt the entire scholarly communication system. Success for any such development relies on reaching a critical threshold of research community engagement with both the process and the platform, and therefore cannot be achieved without a significant change of incentives in research environments.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 213 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 213 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 213 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 42 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 12%
Librarian 21 10%
Student > Master 20 9%
Other 16 8%
Other 56 26%
Unknown 32 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 38 18%
Social Sciences 28 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 5%
Other 68 32%
Unknown 44 21%