No Cover Image

Journal article 162 views 24 downloads

A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review / Tom, Crick

F1000Research, Volume: 6, Start page: 1151

Swansea University Author: Tom, Crick

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 w...

Full description

Published in: F1000Research
ISSN: 2046-1402
Published: F1000Research 2017
Online Access: Check full text

URI: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa43371
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
first_indexed 2018-08-14T15:01:05Z
last_indexed 2019-05-13T10:11:56Z
id cronfa43371
recordtype SURis
fullrecord <?xml version="1.0"?><rfc1807><datestamp>2019-05-09T11:52:01.2227261</datestamp><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>43371</id><entry>2018-08-14</entry><title>A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>200c66ef0fc55391f736f6e926fb4b99</sid><ORCID>0000-0001-5196-9389</ORCID><firstname>Tom</firstname><surname>Crick</surname><name>Tom Crick</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2018-08-14</date><deptcode>EDUC</deptcode><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 and reduce the biases of existing models as much 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 could, at least partially, resolve many of the socio-technical issues associated with peer review, and 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.</abstract><type>Journal Article</type><journal>F1000Research</journal><volume>6</volume><paginationStart>1151</paginationStart><publisher>F1000Research</publisher><issnElectronic>2046-1402</issnElectronic><keywords>Open Peer Review, Social Media, Web 2.0, Open Science, Scholarly Publishing, Incentives, Quality Control</keywords><publishedDay>29</publishedDay><publishedMonth>11</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2017</publishedYear><publishedDate>2017-11-29</publishedDate><doi>10.12688/f1000research.12037.3</doi><url>https://f1000research.com/articles/6-1151/v3</url><notes/><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><department>School of Education</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><DepartmentCode>EDUC</DepartmentCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><lastEdited>2019-05-09T11:52:01.2227261</lastEdited><Created>2018-08-14T15:41:05.9821534</Created><path><level id="1">College of Science</level><level id="2">Computer Science</level></path><authors><author><firstname>Jonathan P.</firstname><surname>Tennant</surname><order>1</order></author><author><firstname>Jonathan M.</firstname><surname>Dugan</surname><order>2</order></author><author><firstname>Daniel</firstname><surname>Graziotin</surname><order>3</order></author><author><firstname>Damien C.</firstname><surname>Jacques</surname><order>4</order></author><author><firstname>Fran&#xE7;ois</firstname><surname>Waldner</surname><order>5</order></author><author><firstname>Daniel</firstname><surname>Mietchen</surname><order>6</order></author><author><firstname>Yehia</firstname><surname>Elkhatib</surname><order>7</order></author><author><firstname>Lauren</firstname><surname>B. Collister</surname><order>8</order></author><author><firstname>Christina K.</firstname><surname>Pikas</surname><order>9</order></author><author><firstname>Tom</firstname><surname>Crick</surname><orcid>0000-0001-5196-9389</orcid><order>10</order></author><author><firstname>Paola</firstname><surname>Masuzzo</surname><order>11</order></author><author><firstname>Anthony</firstname><surname>Caravaggi</surname><order>12</order></author><author><firstname>Devin R.</firstname><surname>Berg</surname><order>13</order></author><author><firstname>Kyle E.</firstname><surname>Niemeyer</surname><order>14</order></author><author><firstname>Tony</firstname><surname>Ross-Hellauer</surname><order>15</order></author><author><firstname>Sara</firstname><surname>Mannheimer</surname><order>16</order></author><author><firstname>Lillian</firstname><surname>Rigling</surname><order>17</order></author><author><firstname>Daniel S.</firstname><surname>Katz</surname><order>18</order></author><author><firstname>Bastian</firstname><surname>Greshake Tzovaras</surname><order>19</order></author><author><firstname>Josmel</firstname><surname>Pacheco-Mendoza</surname><order>20</order></author><author><firstname>Nazeefa</firstname><surname>Fatima</surname><order>21</order></author><author><firstname>Marta</firstname><surname>Poblet</surname><order>22</order></author><author><firstname>Marios</firstname><surname>Isaakidis</surname><order>23</order></author><author><firstname>Dasapta Erwin</firstname><surname>Irawan</surname><order>24</order></author><author><firstname>S&#xE9;bastien</firstname><surname>Renaut</surname><order>25</order></author><author><firstname>Christopher R.</firstname><surname>Madan</surname><order>26</order></author><author><firstname>Lisa</firstname><surname>Matthias</surname><order>27</order></author><author><firstname>Jesper</firstname><surname>N&#xF8;rgaard Kj&#xE6;r</surname><order>28</order></author><author><firstname>Daniel Paul</firstname><surname>O'Donnell</surname><order>29</order></author><author><firstname>Cameron</firstname><surname>Neylon</surname><order>30</order></author><author><firstname>Sarah</firstname><surname>Kearns</surname><order>31</order></author><author><firstname>Manojkumar</firstname><surname>Selvaraju</surname><order>32</order></author><author><firstname>Julien</firstname><surname>Colomb</surname><order>33</order></author></authors><documents><document><filename>0043371-27082018104045.pdf</filename><originalFilename>fab6d962-46a8-4598-81b9-5693a5a25adc_12037_-_jon_tennant_v3.pdf</originalFilename><uploaded>2018-08-27T10:40:45.4730000</uploaded><type>Output</type><contentLength>4070669</contentLength><contentType>application/pdf</contentType><version>Version of Record</version><cronfaStatus>true</cronfaStatus><action/><embargoDate>2018-08-27T00:00:00.0000000</embargoDate><copyrightCorrect>true</copyrightCorrect><language>eng</language></document></documents></rfc1807>
spelling 2019-05-09T11:52:01.2227261 v2 43371 2018-08-14 A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review 200c66ef0fc55391f736f6e926fb4b99 0000-0001-5196-9389 Tom Crick Tom Crick true false 2018-08-14 EDUC 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 and reduce the biases of existing models as much 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 could, at least partially, resolve many of the socio-technical issues associated with peer review, and 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. Journal Article F1000Research 6 1151 F1000Research 2046-1402 Open Peer Review, Social Media, Web 2.0, Open Science, Scholarly Publishing, Incentives, Quality Control 29 11 2017 2017-11-29 10.12688/f1000research.12037.3 https://f1000research.com/articles/6-1151/v3 COLLEGE NANME School of Education COLLEGE CODE EDUC Swansea University 2019-05-09T11:52:01.2227261 2018-08-14T15:41:05.9821534 College of Science Computer Science Jonathan P. Tennant 1 Jonathan M. Dugan 2 Daniel Graziotin 3 Damien C. Jacques 4 François Waldner 5 Daniel Mietchen 6 Yehia Elkhatib 7 Lauren B. Collister 8 Christina K. Pikas 9 Tom Crick 0000-0001-5196-9389 10 Paola Masuzzo 11 Anthony Caravaggi 12 Devin R. Berg 13 Kyle E. Niemeyer 14 Tony Ross-Hellauer 15 Sara Mannheimer 16 Lillian Rigling 17 Daniel S. Katz 18 Bastian Greshake Tzovaras 19 Josmel Pacheco-Mendoza 20 Nazeefa Fatima 21 Marta Poblet 22 Marios Isaakidis 23 Dasapta Erwin Irawan 24 Sébastien Renaut 25 Christopher R. Madan 26 Lisa Matthias 27 Jesper Nørgaard Kjær 28 Daniel Paul O'Donnell 29 Cameron Neylon 30 Sarah Kearns 31 Manojkumar Selvaraju 32 Julien Colomb 33 0043371-27082018104045.pdf fab6d962-46a8-4598-81b9-5693a5a25adc_12037_-_jon_tennant_v3.pdf 2018-08-27T10:40:45.4730000 Output 4070669 application/pdf Version of Record true 2018-08-27T00:00:00.0000000 true eng
title A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review
spellingShingle A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review
Tom, Crick
title_short A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review
title_full A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review
title_fullStr A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review
title_full_unstemmed A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review
title_sort A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review
author_id_str_mv 200c66ef0fc55391f736f6e926fb4b99
author_id_fullname_str_mv 200c66ef0fc55391f736f6e926fb4b99_***_Tom, Crick
author Tom, Crick
format Journal article
container_title F1000Research
container_volume 6
container_start_page 1151
publishDate 2017
institution Swansea University
issn 2046-1402
doi_str_mv 10.12688/f1000research.12037.3
publisher F1000Research
college_str College of Science
hierarchytype
hierarchy_top_id collegeofscience
hierarchy_top_title College of Science
hierarchy_parent_id collegeofscience
hierarchy_parent_title College of Science
department_str Computer Science{{{_:::_}}}College of Science{{{_:::_}}}Computer Science
url https://f1000research.com/articles/6-1151/v3
document_store_str 1
active_str 0
description 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 and reduce the biases of existing models as much 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 could, at least partially, resolve many of the socio-technical issues associated with peer review, and 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.
published_date 2017-11-29T13:58:01Z
_version_ 1668482682063945728
score 10.901034