Vigorous debate currently surrounds peer review, and polarized views are often expressed. Despite criticisms about the process, studies have found that it is still valued by researchers, with rigorous peer review being rated by authors as the most important service they expect to receive when paying to have their papers published open access. The expectations of peer review and what it can achieve need, however, to be realistic. Peer review is also only as good and effective as the people managing the process, and the large variation in standards that exists is one of the reasons some of the research and related communities have become critical of and disillusioned with the traditional model of peer review. The role of the editor is critical. All editors must act as proper editors, not just moving manuscripts automatically through the various stages, but making critical judgements throughout the process to reach sound and unbiased editorial decisions. New models and innovations in peer review are appearing. Many issues, however, remain the same: rigorous procedures and high ethical standards should be in place, those responsible for making decisions and managing the process need to be trained to equip them for their roles and responsibilities, and systems need to be adapted to deal with new challenges such as the increasing amounts of data being generated and needing to be taken into account when assessing the validity and soundness of work and the conclusions being drawn.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  

• The challenge of recruiting peer reviewers from one medical journal’s perspective
  Christopher J. Peterson, Cynthia Orticio, Kenneth Nugent
  Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings.2022; 35(3): 394.     CrossRef
• Effective Peer Review: Who, Where, or What?
  Russell P. Hall
  JID Innovations.2022; 2(6): 100162.     CrossRef
• JID Innovations and Peer Review
  Russell P. Hall
  JID Innovations.2021; 1(3): 100056.     CrossRef
• Enhancing reproducibility: Failures from Reproducibility Initiatives underline core challenges
  Kevin Mullane, Michael Williams
  Biochemical Pharmacology.2017; 138: 7.     CrossRef
• Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers
  Tony Ross-Hellauer, Arvid Deppe, Birgit Schmidt, Jelte M. Wicherts
  PLOS ONE.2017; 12(12): e0189311.     CrossRef
• Editing and publishing scholarly journals in the internet age
  Kihong Kim
  Science Editing.2014; 1(1): 2.     CrossRef
• The big picture: scholarly publishing trends 2014
  Pippa Smart
  Science Editing.2014; 1(2): 52.     CrossRef