↓ Skip to main content

F1000Research

Article Metrics

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

blogs
14 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
640 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
6 Facebook pages
googleplus
6 Google+ users
q&a
1 Q&A thread
Title
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
Authors

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

Abstract

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 204 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 1 Mendeley reader of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 1 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 2800%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 2100%
Librarian 19 1900%
Other 15 1500%
Student > Master 14 1400%
Other 46 4600%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 32 3200%
Social Sciences 27 2700%
Unspecified 13 1300%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 1300%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 1200%
Other 46 4600%