Evolution in Peer Review: Exploring Alternative Models for Enhanced Academic Publishing
By Swagatika Shuvadarsini
Peer review, as the term suggests, has been the standard for maintaining the quality of academic research publications. The traditional model of peer review involves research papers being assessed by a small number or group of scholars having expertise in the same field, before publication. There are two prominent modes of review that exist in the traditional peer review process, which are single-anonymized peer review and double-anonymized peer review. Despite its crucial role in the academic research publication process, it is undeniable that biases persist within this system. In order to address this bias within the peer review process, many journals prefer anonymized peer review. However, speed and transparency are still impacted in the traditional method.
Change is the only constant, and this applies to peer review as well. Recent years have witnessed the emergence of various alternative peer review models, each aiming to tackle issues related to bias, speed, transparency, and inclusivity.
The alternative peer review models deviate from the traditional peer review process, focusing on a broader range of perspectives, improving transparency, and adapting to the changing landscape of academic publishing. Meandering its way through the challenges, it ensures a more comprehensive and accurate evaluation of scholarly research.
Different alternate peer review models:
1. Open Peer Review: In open peer review, the identities of the authors and reviewers are known to each other. This process emphasizes accountability and civility, which enhances the overall quality of the review and article. Some publications may additionally provide the review comments with the published articles, allowing readers to see the reviewers' identities and their feedback. Hence, reviewers feel more inclined to complete an accurate evaluation as they get acknowledged in the final publication.
2. Collaborative peer review: Collaborative peer review involves a group of authors and reviewers working together to improve a paper. This process is generally conducted on a journal-provided platform, wherein authors and reviewers engage in discussions to refine the manuscript. Some online platforms also offer collaborative peer review, allowing a larger community of researchers to share their knowledge. These platforms often feature discussions and observations on specific sections of an article, making them more beneficial and less restrictive.
3. Crowd-based peer review: Crowd-based peer review is a public review process that involves anonymous peer review by a disparate crowd of experts selected by the journal editor. In this process, there is no set limit for the required review. As it includes a number of reviewers who are highly diverse, it reduces the chances of bias and enhances the quality of articles. This review process is much faster as the available crowd submits reviews on time, and review comments also include more details about the scope of improvement.
4. Post-Publication Peer Review: Yet another model is post-publication peer review, which can either be an add-on to or replacement for pre-publication peer review. When the article is published, the readers are allowed to publicly share their comments in a systematic manner via the platform provided by the journals. With the rise of technology and easy access to the internet, scholars can easily read articles and share their views as comments across the globe. The authors can then update their content accordingly.
In conclusion, it is evident that alternative peer review models are making significant strides in addressing certain challenges that the traditional peer review process faces. These models prioritize transparency, inclusiveness, and foster active involvement of a diverse community of experts. However, maintaining a proper record of the manuscript versions and histories, review comments, and the authors’ responses can be tedious as compared to the traditional method. Further, considering the involvement of larger groups of reviewers, credibility of the review comments is likely to be questionable, whereas the traditional method promises more accurate evaluations. We must look forward to some more comprehensive peer review methods. Ultimately, the overarching goal should be a collaborative effort to elevate the quality and impact of academic publications, recognizing that both traditional and alternative peer review approaches have their merits and areas for improvement.
Sage is a proud partner and contributor to Peer Review Week. Browse more content here.
About the Author
