Maria Kowalczuk, PhD
Deputy Biology Editor, BioMed Central
Innovation in Peer Review
http://www.meta-activism.org/2011/05/...
Traditional peer review
• Peer review in the current form has been used
since 1960s.
• Traditionally scientific journals u...
Pitfalls of traditional
peer review
• Slow
• Expensive to manage
• Inconsistent
• Bias
• Favouritism
• Abuse
http://www.eu...
Innovative peer review models
• Open peer review
• Minimal re-review
• Portable peer review
• Technical peer review
• Deco...
Open (non-anonymous) peer review
Randomised Controlled Trial (BMJ 1999; 318: 23 – 27):
- no effect on report quality, reco...
Biology Direct PubMed record
Publishing peer review documents
- In all 4 EMBO publications, including EMBO J, EMBO Reports
-‘Peer Review Process File’ ...
Authors can opt out of re-review; if the editors judge the revisions sufficient,
the article is published, often accompani...
Portable peer review
Flagships
Subject-specific
journals
BMC Research Notes
BMC series
BMC Neuroscience
BMC Public Health
...
Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium
Technical peer review
Post publication peer review via comments
• PubMed Commons
• PubPeer.com
• Research Gate
• Frontiers
• BioMed Central and ...
Conclusions
 Peer review is under scrutiny
 Developments in peer review include:
 Open peer review
 Minimizing re-revi...
Thank you!
Maria Kowalczuk, PhD
Deputy Biology Editor, BioMed Central
Maria.Kowalczuk@biomedcentral.com
Any questions?
Innovation in peer review
Innovation in peer review
Innovation in peer review
Innovation in peer review
Innovation in peer review
Innovation in peer review
Innovation in peer review
Innovation in peer review
Innovation in peer review
Innovation in peer review
Innovation in peer review
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Innovation in peer review

4,286 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

Innovation in peer review

  1. 1. Maria Kowalczuk, PhD Deputy Biology Editor, BioMed Central Innovation in Peer Review http://www.meta-activism.org/2011/05/fixing-peer-review-freeing-knowledge-creation/
  2. 2. Traditional peer review • Peer review in the current form has been used since 1960s. • Traditionally scientific journals use single blind peer review or double blind peer review models. • Online publishing and open access have changed the publishing landscape while peer review process has remained the same.
  3. 3. Pitfalls of traditional peer review • Slow • Expensive to manage • Inconsistent • Bias • Favouritism • Abuse http://www.eusci.org.uk/articles/exploring-scientific-peer-review
  4. 4. Innovative peer review models • Open peer review • Minimal re-review • Portable peer review • Technical peer review • Decoupled peer review • Post publication peer review http://www.bishop- hill.net/blog/2011/3/20/peer-review-not-for- the-short-sighted-josh-87.html
  5. 5. Open (non-anonymous) peer review Randomised Controlled Trial (BMJ 1999; 318: 23 – 27): - no effect on report quality, recommendation, or time taken to review - increased likelihood of reviewers declining to review
  6. 6. Biology Direct PubMed record
  7. 7. Publishing peer review documents - In all 4 EMBO publications, including EMBO J, EMBO Reports -‘Peer Review Process File’ shows all referee reports , author responses and editorial decision letters - Referees remain anonymous; opt-out is possible - 95% of take-up rate; willingness of referees to review unchanged
  8. 8. Authors can opt out of re-review; if the editors judge the revisions sufficient, the article is published, often accompanied by a critical Commentary. Discussed in Editorial: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/11/18. Re-review opt-out – BMC Biology
  9. 9. Portable peer review Flagships Subject-specific journals BMC Research Notes BMC series BMC Neuroscience BMC Public Health BMC Independent Journals
  10. 10. Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium
  11. 11. Technical peer review
  12. 12. Post publication peer review via comments • PubMed Commons • PubPeer.com • Research Gate • Frontiers • BioMed Central and other publishers
  13. 13. Conclusions  Peer review is under scrutiny  Developments in peer review include:  Open peer review  Minimizing re-review  Portable peer review  Technical peer review  Peer review decoupled from journal  Post publication peer review
  14. 14. Thank you! Maria Kowalczuk, PhD Deputy Biology Editor, BioMed Central Maria.Kowalczuk@biomedcentral.com Any questions?

×