Preview

Science Editor and Publisher

Advanced search

Ensuring effective scholarly communication: traditions and innovations of peer review

https://doi.org/10.24069/2542-0267-2021-1-6-17

Full Text:

Abstract

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.

About the Authors

E. V. Tikhonova
RUDN University; Russian Academy of Education
Russian Federation

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

Moscow



L. K. Raitskaya
Moscow Institute of International Relations (MGIMO University)
Russian Federation

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

Moscow



References

1. Peters 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: 10.1080/00131857.2020.1846519

2. Besançon 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-z

3. Mehmani 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-editors

4. 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/

5. 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.22798

6. Zhang 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.2020.5

7. McDowell 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.48425

8. Manchikanti 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.E1

9. Jefferson 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.pub3

10. Jubb M. Peer review: The current landscape and future trends. Learned Publishing. 2016;29(1):13–21. DOI: 10.1002/leap.1008

11. Retraction. Journal of Enzyme Inhibition and Medicinal Chemistry. 2012;27(5):758. DOI: 10.3109/14756366.2012.712024

12. SAGE 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-control

13. da 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-z

14. Park 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.2020.46.5.299

15. Pöschl 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: 10.1177/0340035209359573

16. Groves T., Loder E. Prepublication histories and open peer review at the BMJ. BMJ. 2014;349:g5394. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g5394

17. Pharaon 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-a

18. Ford 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.6005.2

19. Ross-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.11369.2

20. Zong 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-01-2019-0027

21. Foxe 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.13541

22. Zong 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-y

23. Wolfram D., Wang P., Hembree A., Park H. Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science.Scientometrics. 2020;125(2):1033–1051. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03488-4

24. Morey 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.150547

25. Горбунова 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).22-38

26. Shoham N., Pitman A. Open versus blind peer review: Is anonymity better than transparency? BJPsych Advances. 2020:1–8. DOI: 10.1192/bja.2020.61

27. Godlee F. Making reviewers visible: Openness, accountability, and credit. JAMA. 2002;287(21):2762–2765. DOI: 10.1001/jama.287.21.2762

28. Schmidt 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.15334.1

29. Moylan 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: 10.1186/2050-6511-15-55

30. Galimberti P. Open science and evaluation. SCIRES-it. 2020;10:65–70. DOI: 10.2423/i22394303v10Sp65

31. Walsh 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.176.1.47

32. van 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.c5729

33. Lynam 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/abn0000426

34. Khan K. Is open peer review the fairest system? No. BMJ. 2010;341:c6425. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c6425

35. Bucur 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_7

36. Landhuis E. Scientific literature: information overload. Nature. 2016;535:457–458. DOI: 10.1038/nj7612-457a

37. Wang P., Rath M., Deike M., Qiang W. Open peer review: An innovation in scientific publishing. In: IConference 2016 Proceedings. 2016. DOI: 10.9776/16315

38. 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.

39. 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: 10.24069/2542-0267-2020-2-135-144

40. Martínez-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.M21000453

41. Topf J. M, Hiremath S. Social media, medicine and the modern journal club. International Review of Psychiatry. 2015;27(2):147–154. DOI: 10.3109/09540261.2014.998991

42. Tracz V., Lawrence R. Towards an open science publishing platform [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research. 2016;5:1–10. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.7968.1

43. da 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/s11948-016-9863-1

44. Yeo 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: 10.1177/0963662516649806

45. Abdin 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/publications9010013

46. Spezi 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-06-2017-0092

47. Jacob 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.v1

48. Rittman M., Vazquez F. Sci – An Open Access Journal with Post-Publication Peer Review. Sci. 2019;1(1);1. DOI: 10.3390/sci1010001

49. Baggs 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.x

50. Patel 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/s41073-017-0029-8

51. Shashok 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: 10.13130/2282-5398/10125

52. Vazquez 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


For citation:


Tikhonova E.V., Raitskaya L.K. Ensuring effective scholarly communication: traditions and innovations of peer review. Science Editor and Publisher. 2021;6(1):6-17. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24069/2542-0267-2021-1-6-17

Views: 603


ISSN 2542-0267 (Print)
ISSN 2541-8122 (Online)