It is a time of great innovation in peer review. Traditional models are being adapted and completely new ones introduced. Independent peer-review services are also starting to be offered by organizations outside the traditional journal ecosphere. In both new and established systems, the importance of increasing openness, transparency, and interaction between peer-review participants is being recognized, and these are being introduced to varying degrees. Concern with the ‘wastage’ of review effort in traditional peer review, where manuscripts often go from journal to journal, being reviewed afresh at each, before being accepted for publication, is also being addressed. Reviews are being transferred (‘cascaded’) and shared between some journals. The separation of the two basic functions of peer review—critical review and selection—as originally introduced by the journal PLOS ONE has been a major innovation, leading to the publication of sound work irrespective of its perceived novelty, interest, or importance. Post-publication review is also becoming more important and is another growth area. The concept of ‘portable’ reviews has been introduced, where authors can take reviews with them—either after they have obtained them from a peer-review provider in return for a fee or had their manuscript reviewed and declined at some journals—and include them with submissions to journals. The dynamics of publication are changing alongside, with journals able to ‘bid’ for papers that have been reviewed by independent organizations and make publishing offers to the authors. A number of innovations and ‘alternative’ peer-review models are described. They all, however, face many of the same issues as traditional peer review, and the same basic principles of good and ethical practice apply.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  

• Experience with “Select Crowd Review” in Peer Review for The Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeon: 1-Year Experience
  Roman Gottardi, Peter Thomas Henning, Jessica Bogensberger, Markus K. Heinemann
  The Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeon.2023; 71(08): 609.     CrossRef
• Journal Peer Review and Editorial Evaluation: Cautious Innovator or Sleepy Giant?
  Serge P. J. M. Horbach, Willem Halffman
  Minerva.2020; 58(2): 139.     CrossRef
• The relationship of polarity of post-publication peer review to citation count
  Qianjin Zong, Lili Fan, Yafen Xie, Jingshi Huang
  Online Information Review.2020; 44(3): 583.     CrossRef
• Innovative Strategies for Peer Review
  Edward Barroga
  Journal of Korean Medical Science.2020;[Epub]     CrossRef
• Transparent Attribution of Contributions to Research: Aligning Guidelines to Real-Life Practices
  Valerie Matarese, Karen Shashok
  Publications.2019; 7(2): 24.     CrossRef
• The changing forms and expectations of peer review
  S. P. J. M. Horbach, W. ( Willem) Halffman
  Research Integrity and Peer Review.2018;[Epub]     CrossRef
• What is open peer review? A systematic review
  Tony Ross-Hellauer
  F1000Research.2017; 6: 588.     CrossRef
• What is open peer review? A systematic review
  Tony Ross-Hellauer
  F1000Research.2017; 6: 588.     CrossRef
• Peer‐review warning: system error, reviewers not found
  Lluís Brotons
  Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.2015; 13(5): 241.     CrossRef
• Does ‘get visible or vanish’ herald the end of ‘publish or perish’?
  Joanne Doyle, Michael Cuthill
  Higher Education Research & Development.2015; 34(3): 671.     CrossRef
• Emerging trends in peer review—a survey
  Richard Walker, Pascal Rocha da Silva
  Frontiers in Neuroscience.2015;[Epub]     CrossRef
• Journal Metrics-Based Position ofDiabetes & Metabolism Journalafter the Change of Its Text Language to English
  Sun Huh
  Diabetes & Metabolism Journal.2014; 38(3): 187.     CrossRef
• How Far Has theInternational Neurourology JournalProgressed Since Its Transformation Into an English Language Journal?
  Sun Huh
  International Neurourology Journal.2014; 18(1): 3.     CrossRef
• Editing and publishing scholarly journals in the internet age
  Kihong Kim
  Science Editing.2014; 1(1): 2.     CrossRef