scieditorScience Editor and PublisherНаучный редактор и издатель2542-02672541-8122АНРИ10.24069/2542-0267-2021-1-6-17scieditor-149Research ArticleReview articlesОбзорные статьиEnsuring effective scholarly communication: traditions and innovations of peer reviewРецензирование как инструмент обеспечения эффективной научной коммуникации: традиции и инновацииhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-8252-6150ТихоноваЕ. В.TikhonovaE. V.

Тихонова Елена Викторовна, кандидат исторических наук, доцент, заведующий редакцией международного научного журнала Journal of Language and Education

г. Москва

Elena V. Tikhonova, Cand. Sci. (History), Associated Professor, Head of the Editorial Office of the Journal of Language and Education

Moscow

etihonova@gmail.comhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-2086-6090РаицкаяЛ. К.RaitskayaL. K.

Раицкая Лилия Климентовна, доктор педагогических наук, доцент, кандидат экономических наук, профессор кафедры педагогики и психологии, советник ректора

г. Москва

Lilia K. Raitskaya, Dr. Sci. (Pedagogy), Associated Professor, Professor of the Chair of Pedagogy and Psychology, Rector’s Advisor

Moscow

L.Raitskaya@mail.ruРоссийский университет дружбы народов; Российская академия образованияРоссияRUDN University; Russian Academy of EducationRussian FederationМосковский государственный институт международных отношений (университет) Министерства иностранных дел Российской ФедерацииРоссияMoscow Institute of International Relations (MGIMO University)Russian Federation20210406202161617Copyright © Tikhonova E.V., Raitskaya L.K., 20212021Тихонова Е.В., Раицкая Л.К.Tikhonova E.V., Raitskaya L.K.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.scieditor.ru/jour/article/view/149

The fundamental importance of the peer review in the context of scientific communication determines the unprecedented attention paid to it by researchers around the world. New trends in scientific communication are reflected in the transformation of the forms of peer review and the roles of its stakeholders. Within the framework of this article, the challenges faced by a modern reviewer are analyzed, the transforming models of peer review are presented, and the most significant issues generated by the logic of the development of the peer review process are outlined.

Фундаментальное значение процесса рецензирования в контексте научной коммуникации определяет беспрецедентное внимание, которое уделяют ему исследователи во всем мире. Новые тренды в научной коммуникации находят отражение и в трансформации форм рецензирования, ролей его стейкхолдеров. В рамках данной статьи проанализированы вызовы, с которыми сталкивается современный рецензент, представлены трансформирующиеся модели рецензирования и обозначены наиболее значимые вопросы, порожденные логикой развития процесса рецензирования.

рецензированиетипыоткрытое рецензированиепостпубликационное рецензиро- ваниепрепринтыстейкхолдерыдвойное слепое рецензированиеорганизацияфункциимеханизмыpeer reviewtypesopen peer reviewpost-publication peer reviewpreprintsstakeholdersdouble blind peer revieworganizationfunctionsmechanismsReferencesPeters M. A., Brighouse S., Tesar M., Sturm S., Jackson L. The open peer review experiment in Educational Philosophy and Theory (EPAT). Educational Philosophy and Theory. 2020. DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2020.1846519Peters M. A., Brighouse S., Tesar M., Sturm S., Jackson L. The open peer review experiment in Educational Philosophy and Theory (EPAT). Educational Philosophy and Theory. 2020. DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2020.1846519Besançon L., Rönnberg N., Löwgren J., Tennant J. P., Cooper M. Open up: a survey on open and non- anonymized peer reviewing. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2020;5:8. DOI: 10.1186/s41073-020-00094-zBesançon L., Rönnberg N., Löwgren J., Tennant J. P., Cooper M. Open up: a survey on open and non- anonymized peer reviewing. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2020;5:8. DOI: 10.1186/s41073-020-00094-zMehmani B. Pilot designed to help reviewers win recognition leads to better quality reviews, say editors. Editors’ update. Available at: https://www.elsevier.com/editors-update/story/peer-review/pilot-designed-to-help-reviewers-win-recognition-for-their-work-leads-to-better-quality-reviews,-say-editorsMehmani B. Pilot designed to help reviewers win recognition leads to better quality reviews, say editors. Editors’ update. Available at: https://www.elsevier.com/editors-update/story/peer-review/pilot-designed-to-help-reviewers-win-recognition-for-their-work-leads-to-better-quality-reviews,-say-editorsKoutsoyiannis D., Kundzewicz Z. W. Challenging conventional wisdom and the conventional peer- review system – a recent experience. 2020. Available at: https://www.itia.ntua.gr/blog/2020/12/11/challenging-conventional-wisdom-and-the-conventional-peer-review-system/Koutsoyiannis D., Kundzewicz Z. W. Challenging conventional wisdom and the conventional peer- review system – a recent experience. 2020. Available at: https://www.itia.ntua.gr/blog/2020/12/11/challenging-conventional-wisdom-and-the-conventional-peer-review-system/Mulligan A., Hall L., Raphael E. Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2012;64(1):132–161. DOI: 10.1002/asi.22798Mulligan A., Hall L., Raphael E. Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2012;64(1):132–161. DOI: 10.1002/asi.22798Zhang D., Smith R., Lobo S. Should you sign your reviews? Open peer review and review quality. Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 2020;13(1):45–47. DOI: 10.1017/iop.2020.5Zhang D., Smith R., Lobo S. Should you sign your reviews? Open peer review and review quality. Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 2020;13(1):45–47. DOI: 10.1017/iop.2020.5McDowell G. S., Knutsen J. D., Graham J. M., Oelker S. K., Lijek R. S. Co-reviewing and ghostwriting by early- career researchers in the peer review of manuscripts. eLife. 2019;8:e48425. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.48425McDowell G. S., Knutsen J. D., Graham J. M., Oelker S. K., Lijek R. S. Co-reviewing and ghostwriting by early- career researchers in the peer review of manuscripts. eLife. 2019;8:e48425. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.48425Manchikanti L., Kaye A. D., Boswell M., Hirsch J.A. Medical journal peer review: Process and bias. Pain Physician. 2015;18(1):E1– E14. DOI: 10.36076/ppj/2015.18.E1Manchikanti L., Kaye A. D., Boswell M., Hirsch J.A. Medical journal peer review: Process and bias. Pain Physician. 2015;18(1):E1– E14. DOI: 10.36076/ppj/2015.18.E1Jefferson T., Rudin M., Brodney Folse S., Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Review. 2007;2:MR000016. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000016.pub3Jefferson T., Rudin M., Brodney Folse S., Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Review. 2007;2:MR000016. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000016.pub3Jubb M. Peer review: The current landscape and future trends. Learned Publishing. 2016;29(1):13–21. DOI: 10.1002/leap.1008Jubb M. Peer review: The current landscape and future trends. Learned Publishing. 2016;29(1):13–21. DOI: 10.1002/leap.1008Retraction. Journal of Enzyme Inhibition and Medicinal Chemistry. 2012;27(5):758. DOI: 10.3109/14756366.2012.712024Retraction. Journal of Enzyme Inhibition and Medicinal Chemistry. 2012;27(5):758. DOI: 10.3109/14756366.2012.712024SAGE statement on Journal of Vibration and Control. 2014. Available at: https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/press/sage-statement-on-journal-of-vibration-and-controlSAGE statement on Journal of Vibration and Control. 2014. Available at: https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/press/sage-statement-on-journal-of-vibration-and-controlda Silva J. A. T., Bornemann-Cimenti H., Tsigaris P. Optimizing peer review to minimize the risk of retracting COVID-19-related literature. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. 2021;24(1):21–26. DOI: 10.1007/ s11019-020-09990-zda Silva J. A. T., Bornemann-Cimenti H., Tsigaris P. Optimizing peer review to minimize the risk of retracting COVID-19-related literature. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. 2021;24(1):21–26. DOI: 10.1007/ s11019-020-09990-zPark J. Y. Is open peer review, a growing trend in scholarly publishing, a double-edged sword? Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. 2020;46(5):299–300. DOI: 10.5125/jkaoms.2020.46.5.299Park J. Y. Is open peer review, a growing trend in scholarly publishing, a double-edged sword? Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. 2020;46(5):299–300. DOI: 10.5125/jkaoms.2020.46.5.299Pöschl U. Interactive open access publishing and public peer review: The effectiveness of transparency and self-regulation in scientific quality assurance. IFLA Journal. 2010;36(1):40–46. DOI: 10.1177/0340035209359573Pöschl U. Interactive open access publishing and public peer review: The effectiveness of transparency and self-regulation in scientific quality assurance. IFLA Journal. 2010;36(1):40–46. DOI: 10.1177/0340035209359573Groves T., Loder E. Prepublication histories and open peer review at the BMJ. BMJ. 2014;349:g5394. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g5394Groves T., Loder E. Prepublication histories and open peer review at the BMJ. BMJ. 2014;349:g5394. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g5394Pharaon S. Open peer review: A route to democracy. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 2007;100(1):9. DOI: 10.1258/jrsm.100.1.9-aPharaon S. Open peer review: A route to democracy. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 2007;100(1):9. DOI: 10.1258/jrsm.100.1.9-aFord E. Open peer review at four STEM journals: an observational overview [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research. 2015;4:6. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.6005.2Ford E. Open peer review at four STEM journals: an observational overview [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research. 2015;4:6. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.6005.2Ross-Hellauer T. What is open peer review? A systematic review [version 2; peer review: 4 approved].F1000Research. 2017;6:1–37. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.11369.2Ross-Hellauer T. What is open peer review? A systematic review [version 2; peer review: 4 approved].F1000Research. 2017;6:1–37. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.11369.2Zong Q., Fan L., Xie Y., Huang J. The relationship of polarity of post-publication peer review to citation count: Evidence from Publons. Online Information Review. 2020;44(3):583–602. DOI: 10.1108/OIR-01-2019-0027Zong Q., Fan L., Xie Y., Huang J. The relationship of polarity of post-publication peer review to citation count: Evidence from Publons. Online Information Review. 2020;44(3):583–602. DOI: 10.1108/OIR-01-2019-0027Foxe J. J., Bolam P. Open review and the quest for increased transparency in neuroscience publication.European Journal of Neuroscience. 2017;45(9):1125–1126. DOI: 10.1111/ejn.13541Foxe J. J., Bolam P. Open review and the quest for increased transparency in neuroscience publication.European Journal of Neuroscience. 2017;45(9):1125–1126. DOI: 10.1111/ejn.13541Zong Q., Xie Y., Liang J. Does open peer review improve citation count? Evidence from a propensity score matching analysis of PeerJ. Scientometrics. 2020;125(1):607–623. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03545-yZong Q., Xie Y., Liang J. Does open peer review improve citation count? Evidence from a propensity score matching analysis of PeerJ. Scientometrics. 2020;125(1):607–623. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03545-yWolfram D., Wang P., Hembree A., Park H. Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science.Scientometrics. 2020;125(2):1033–1051. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03488-4Wolfram D., Wang P., Hembree A., Park H. Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science.Scientometrics. 2020;125(2):1033–1051. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03488-4Morey R. D., Chambers C. D., Etchells P. J., Harris C. R., Hoekstra R., Lakens D., Lewandowsky S., Morey C. C., Newman D.P., Schönbrodt F. D., Vanpaemel W., Wagenmakers E.-J., Zwaan R. A. The peer reviewers’ openness initiative: Incentivizing open research practices through peer review. Royal Society Open Science. 2016;3(1):150547. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.150547Morey R. D., Chambers C. D., Etchells P. J., Harris C. R., Hoekstra R., Lakens D., Lewandowsky S., Morey C. C., Newman D.P., Schönbrodt F. D., Vanpaemel W., Wagenmakers E.-J., Zwaan R. A. The peer reviewers’ openness initiative: Incentivizing open research practices through peer review. Royal Society Open Science. 2016;3(1):150547. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.150547Горбунова А. С., Засурский И. И., Трищенко Н. Д. Новые научные медиа: специфика платформ с от- крытым рецензированием. Вопросы теории и практики журналистики. 2021;10(1):22–38. DOI: 10.17150/2308-6203.2021.10(1).22-38Горбунова А. С., Засурский И. И., Трищенко Н. Д. Новые научные медиа: специфика платформ с от- крытым рецензированием. Вопросы теории и практики журналистики. 2021;10(1):22–38. DOI: 10.17150/2308-6203.2021.10(1).22-38Shoham N., Pitman A. Open versus blind peer review: Is anonymity better than transparency? BJPsych Advances. 2020:1–8. DOI: 10.1192/bja.2020.61Shoham N., Pitman A. Open versus blind peer review: Is anonymity better than transparency? BJPsych Advances. 2020:1–8. DOI: 10.1192/bja.2020.61Godlee F. Making reviewers visible: Openness, accountability, and credit. JAMA. 2002;287(21):2762–2765. DOI: 10.1001/jama.287.21.2762Godlee F. Making reviewers visible: Openness, accountability, and credit. JAMA. 2002;287(21):2762–2765. DOI: 10.1001/jama.287.21.2762Schmidt B., Ross-Hellauer T., van Edig X., Moylan E. C. Ten considerations for open peer review [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research. 2018;7:969. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.15334.1Schmidt B., Ross-Hellauer T., van Edig X., Moylan E. C. Ten considerations for open peer review [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research. 2018;7:969. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.15334.1Moylan E. C., Harold S., O’Neill C., Kowalczuk M. K. Open, single-blind, double-blind: which peer review process do you prefer? BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology. 2014;15:55. DOI: 10.1186/2050-6511-15-55Moylan E. C., Harold S., O’Neill C., Kowalczuk M. K. Open, single-blind, double-blind: which peer review process do you prefer? BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology. 2014;15:55. DOI: 10.1186/2050-6511-15-55Galimberti P. Open science and evaluation. SCIRES-it. 2020;10:65–70. DOI: 10.2423/i22394303v10Sp65Galimberti P. Open science and evaluation. SCIRES-it. 2020;10:65–70. DOI: 10.2423/i22394303v10Sp65Walsh E., Rooney M., Appleby L., Wilkinson G. Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Psychiatry. 2000;176(1):47–51. DOI: 10.1192/bjp.176.1.47Walsh E., Rooney M., Appleby L., Wilkinson G. Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Psychiatry. 2000;176(1):47–51. DOI: 10.1192/bjp.176.1.47van Rooyen S., Delamothe T., Evans S. J. Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2010;341:c5729. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c5729van Rooyen S., Delamothe T., Evans S. J. Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2010;341:c5729. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c5729Lynam D.R., Hyatt C. S., Hopwood C. J., Wright A. G. C., Miller J. D. Should psychologists sign their reviews? Some thoughts and some data. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2019;128(6);541–546. DOI: 10.1037/abn0000426Lynam D.R., Hyatt C. S., Hopwood C. J., Wright A. G. C., Miller J. D. Should psychologists sign their reviews? Some thoughts and some data. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2019;128(6);541–546. DOI: 10.1037/abn0000426Khan K. Is open peer review the fairest system? No. BMJ. 2010;341:c6425. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c6425Khan K. Is open peer review the fairest system? No. BMJ. 2010;341:c6425. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c6425Bucur C. I., Kuhn T., Ceolin D. A Unified Nanopublication Model for Effective and User-Friendly Access to the Elements of Scientific Publishing. In: Keet C. M., Dumontier M. (eds). Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management. EKAW 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 12387. Springer, Cham, pp. 104–119. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-61244-3_7Bucur C. I., Kuhn T., Ceolin D. A Unified Nanopublication Model for Effective and User-Friendly Access to the Elements of Scientific Publishing. In: Keet C. M., Dumontier M. (eds). Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management. EKAW 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 12387. Springer, Cham, pp. 104–119. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-61244-3_7Landhuis E. Scientific literature: information overload. Nature. 2016;535:457–458. DOI: 10.1038/nj7612-457aLandhuis E. Scientific literature: information overload. Nature. 2016;535:457–458. DOI: 10.1038/nj7612-457aWang P., Rath M., Deike M., Qiang W. Open peer review: An innovation in scientific publishing. In: IConference 2016 Proceedings. 2016. DOI: 10.9776/16315Wang P., Rath M., Deike M., Qiang W. Open peer review: An innovation in scientific publishing. In: IConference 2016 Proceedings. 2016. DOI: 10.9776/16315Спинс П., Видаль М. Э. Научное рецензирование. Лучшие практики и рекомендации. Ред. пер. с англ. Е. В. Тихонова, О. В. Кириллова. СПб.: Эко Вектор; 2021.Спинс П., Видаль М. Э. Научное рецензирование. Лучшие практики и рекомендации. Ред. пер. с англ. Е. В. Тихонова, О. В. Кириллова. СПб.: Эко Вектор; 2021.Тихонова Е. В. Международный форум «Peer Review Week 2020», 21–25 сентября 2020 г. Сессия Россий- ского отделения Европейской ассоциации научных редакторов (EASE) и Ассоциации научных редакторов и издателей (АНРИ), 24 сентября 2020 г., Москва, Россия. Научный редактор и издатель. 2020;5(2):135–144. DOI: 10.24069/2542-0267-2020-2-135-144Тихонова Е. В. Международный форум «Peer Review Week 2020», 21–25 сентября 2020 г. Сессия Россий- ского отделения Европейской ассоциации научных редакторов (EASE) и Ассоциации научных редакторов и издателей (АНРИ), 24 сентября 2020 г., Москва, Россия. Научный редактор и издатель. 2020;5(2):135–144. DOI: 10.24069/2542-0267-2020-2-135-144Martínez-Saucedo M., Téllez-Camacho S., Aquino-Jarquín G., Sánchez-Urbina R., Granados-Riverón J. T. Post-publication peer review: another sort of quality control of the scientific record in biomedicine. La revisión por pares pospublicación: otro control de calidad del registro científico en biomedicina. Gaceta medica de Mexico. 2020;156(6):523–526. DOI: 10.24875/GMM.M21000453Martínez-Saucedo M., Téllez-Camacho S., Aquino-Jarquín G., Sánchez-Urbina R., Granados-Riverón J. T. Post-publication peer review: another sort of quality control of the scientific record in biomedicine. La revisión por pares pospublicación: otro control de calidad del registro científico en biomedicina. Gaceta medica de Mexico. 2020;156(6):523–526. DOI: 10.24875/GMM.M21000453Topf J. M, Hiremath S. Social media, medicine and the modern journal club. International Review of Psychiatry. 2015;27(2):147–154. DOI: 10.3109/09540261.2014.998991Topf J. M, Hiremath S. Social media, medicine and the modern journal club. International Review of Psychiatry. 2015;27(2):147–154. DOI: 10.3109/09540261.2014.998991Tracz V., Lawrence R. Towards an open science publishing platform [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research. 2016;5:1–10. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.7968.1Tracz V., Lawrence R. Towards an open science publishing platform [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research. 2016;5:1–10. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.7968.1da Silva J.A. T. Reflection on the Fazlul Sarkar versus PubPeer (‘John Doe’) case. Science and Engineering Ethics. 2018;24(1):323–325. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-016-9863-1da Silva J.A. T. Reflection on the Fazlul Sarkar versus PubPeer (‘John Doe’) case. Science and Engineering Ethics. 2018;24(1):323–325. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-016-9863-1Yeo S. K., Liang X., Brossard D., Rose K. M., Korzekwa K., Scheufele D.A., Xenos M. A. The case of #arseniclife: Blogs and Twitter in informal peer review. Public Understanding of Science. 2017;26(8):937–952. DOI: 10.1177/0963662516649806Yeo S. K., Liang X., Brossard D., Rose K. M., Korzekwa K., Scheufele D.A., Xenos M. A. The case of #arseniclife: Blogs and Twitter in informal peer review. Public Understanding of Science. 2017;26(8):937–952. DOI: 10.1177/0963662516649806Abdin A. Y., Nasim M. J., Ney Y., Jacob C. The Pioneering Role of Sci in Post Publication Public Peer Review (P4R). Publications. 2021;9(1):13. DOI: 10.3390/publications9010013Abdin A. Y., Nasim M. J., Ney Y., Jacob C. The Pioneering Role of Sci in Post Publication Public Peer Review (P4R). Publications. 2021;9(1):13. DOI: 10.3390/publications9010013Spezi V., Wakeling S., Pinfield S., Fry J., Creaser C., Willett P. “Let the community decide”? The vision and reality of soundness-only peer review in open-access mega-journals. Journal of Documentation. 2018;74(1):137–161. DOI: 10.1108/JD-06-2017-0092Spezi V., Wakeling S., Pinfield S., Fry J., Creaser C., Willett P. “Let the community decide”? The vision and reality of soundness-only peer review in open-access mega-journals. Journal of Documentation. 2018;74(1):137–161. DOI: 10.1108/JD-06-2017-0092Jacob C., Rittman M., Vazquez F., Abdin A. Y. Evolution of Sci’s Community-Driven Post-Publication Peer-Review. Sci. 2019;1(1):16. DOI: 10.3390/sci1010016.v1Jacob C., Rittman M., Vazquez F., Abdin A. Y. Evolution of Sci’s Community-Driven Post-Publication Peer-Review. Sci. 2019;1(1):16. DOI: 10.3390/sci1010016.v1Rittman M., Vazquez F. Sci – An Open Access Journal with Post-Publication Peer Review. Sci. 2019;1(1);1. DOI: 10.3390/sci1010001Rittman M., Vazquez F. Sci – An Open Access Journal with Post-Publication Peer Review. Sci. 2019;1(1);1. DOI: 10.3390/sci1010001Baggs J. G., Broome M. E., Dougherty M. C., Freda M. C., Kearney M. H. Blinding in peer review: The preferences of reviewers for nursing journals. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2008;64(2):131–138. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04816.xBaggs J. G., Broome M. E., Dougherty M. C., Freda M. C., Kearney M. H. Blinding in peer review: The preferences of reviewers for nursing journals. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2008;64(2):131–138. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04816.xPatel J., Pierce M., Boughton S. L., Baldeweg S. E. Do peer review models affect clinicians’ trust in journals? A survey of junior doctors. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2017;2:11. DOI: 10.1186/s41073-017-0029-8Patel J., Pierce M., Boughton S. L., Baldeweg S. E. Do peer review models affect clinicians’ trust in journals? A survey of junior doctors. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2017;2:11. DOI: 10.1186/s41073-017-0029-8Shashok K., Matarese V. Post-publication peer review in biomedical journals: overcoming obstacles and disincentives to knowledge sharing. Research Policy and Evaluation. 2018;6(1):1–16. DOI: 10.13130/2282-5398/10125Shashok K., Matarese V. Post-publication peer review in biomedical journals: overcoming obstacles and disincentives to knowledge sharing. Research Policy and Evaluation. 2018;6(1):1–16. DOI: 10.13130/2282-5398/10125Vazquez F., Lin S. K., Jacob C. Changing Sci from post-publication peer-review to single-blind peer-review. Sci. 2020;2(4):82. DOI: 10.3390/sci2040082Vazquez F., Lin S. K., Jacob C. Changing Sci from post-publication peer-review to single-blind peer-review. Sci. 2020;2(4):82. DOI: 10.3390/sci2040082

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.