Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Science Editing : Science Editing

OPEN ACCESS
SEARCH
Search

Search

Page Path
HOME > Search
1 "Peer-review models"
Filter
Filter
Article category
Keywords
Publication year
Authors
Review
The changing face of peer review
Irene Hames
Sci Ed. 2014;1(1):9-12.   Published online February 13, 2014
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.2014.1.9
  • 24,739 View
  • 224 Download
  • 13 Web of Science
  • 14 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDF

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

Science Editing : Science Editing
TOP