What is the future of academic peer review?

The peer review process in academic publishing follows a fairly straightforward path. Once a journal editor finds a submitted article or research paper promising, it’s forwarded to a group of appropriately qualified and experienced academic peers for evaluation. These peers then offer an anonymous critique to the author, suggesting revisions or recommending submission to another journal if necessary.

Over the past seven decades or more, what appears to be a straightforward process in design has evolved into the de facto symbol of quality and integrity within academic research pursuits.

Complete strangers, often anonymous, meticulously evaluate your work, determining its suitability for publication and the potential career advancements it may yield.

So Far No Established Rules and Criteria for Peer Review

The process of peer review lacks formal training or certification. Journals don’t provide mentorship or apprenticeship programs, and since peer reviewers are usually unpaid, introducing an intern role would seem redundant. There’s no overarching national association, trade publication, or established code of ethics governing peer review. Instead, we rely on committed professionals who sacrifice their own time to critique the work of their peers, often in isolation. In cases where the research topic is highly specialized, reviewers may even find themselves evaluating the work of their own research rivals.

How Open Access Is Shaping Peer Review

The advent of electronic mail facilitated quicker sharing of file documents; however, the integration of digital technology into peer review processes has been hesitant.

Open Access (OA) publishing has prompted a revaluation of traditional peer review methods, sparking interest in alternative approaches. One such approach is transparent peer review, where reviewers forego anonymity and engage in a collaborative dialogue with authors, shifting the focus from mere evaluation to constructive engagement.

Moreover, open access (OA) journals are increasingly exploring compensation models for peer reviewers that involve monetary rewards instead of offering subscription discounts.

A Time for Change: What’s the Future of Peer Review?

The mounting evidence highlighting the necessity for a shift in the traditional peer review model is concerning, as it stems from less favourable aspects of academic publishing. The increasing number of journal retractions and instances of fabricated peer reviews underscore the urgency for reevaluating the conventional approach.

Instead of regarding peer reviews as an unquestioned aspect of academic publishing, researchers and editors of Open Access (OA) journals are reevaluating the entire process. One proposed solution involves considering compensation through a barter system of peer review, where contributors offer one review for each they receive. While this approach could boost the pool of available peer reviewers, it also prompts concerns about ensuring comparable levels of experience and expertise among reviewers.

A more effective approach entails streamlining the internal peer review process to focus solely on assessing research design and data analysis. The broader evaluation would then be conducted by the academic community at large through post-publication peer review. Advocates argue that this method fosters the vibrant professional discourse that peer review originally aimed for, unimpeded by profit motives and rigid deadlines that have recently overshadowed its purpose.