The evolution of peer review as a basis for scientific publication: directional selection towards a robust discipline?

ABSTRACT Peer review is pivotal to science and academia, as it represents a widely accepted strategy for ensuring quality control in scientific research. Yet, the peer‐review system is poorly adapted to recent changes in the discipline and current societal needs. We provide historical context for th...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 2016-08, Vol.91 (3), p.597-610
Main Authors: Ferreira, Catarina, Bastille-Rousseau, Guillaume, Bennett, Amanda M., Ellington, E. Hance, Terwissen, Christine, Austin, Cayla, Borlestean, Adrian, Boudreau, Melanie R., Chan, Kevin, Forsythe, Adrian, Hossie, Thomas J., Landolt, Kristen, Longhi, Jessica, Otis, Josée-Anne, Peers, Michael J. L., Rae, Jason, Seguin, Jacob, Watt, Cristen, Wehtje, Morgan, Murray, Dennis L.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
critique
long-term solutions
maladaptation
Peer review
Peer Review - standards
Peer Review - trends
Publishing - standards
Quality control
Scholarly publishing
Science - standards
Science - trends
structural flaws
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:ABSTRACT Peer review is pivotal to science and academia, as it represents a widely accepted strategy for ensuring quality control in scientific research. Yet, the peer‐review system is poorly adapted to recent changes in the discipline and current societal needs. We provide historical context for the cultural lag that governs peer review that has eventually led to the system's current structural weaknesses (voluntary review, unstandardized review criteria, decentralized process). We argue that some current attempts to upgrade or otherwise modify the peer‐review system are merely sticking‐plaster solutions to these fundamental flaws, and therefore are unlikely to resolve them in the long term. We claim that for peer review to be relevant, effective, and contemporary with today's publishing demands across scientific disciplines, its main components need to be redesigned. We propose directional changes that are likely to improve the quality, rigour, and timeliness of peer review, and thereby ensure that this critical process serves the community it was created for.
ISSN:1464-7931
1469-185X
DOI:10.1111/brv.12185