Lately I have been reading a lot about some of the shortcomings of peer review and some of the various attempts to reform and modify it. I do not think I would want to live in a world without peer review. Reviewing done well keeps bad science out of journals and provides feedback that can improve a paper before publication. However, it is not always done well. Reviewers often disagree about the merits of a paper, reviews vary widely in quality, and it does not always work. Fraudulent studies make it through. Some of the most famous papers in history were rejected multiple times. Reviewers are usually unpaid volunteers. A good reviewer will spend hours of uncompensated time reviewing someone else's paper. A bad reviewer will write a short vitriolic review personally attacking the authors. Imagine you were in charge of a new journal and had free reign to implement any kind of peer review system you wanted. You can even choose no peer review. How would you implement peer review at your journal? Would you try to come up modifications to make it more objective and efficient or is peer review as commonly practiced the best of the imperfect options that are out there?
Peer review is an essential component of scientific research, but it is not a perfect system. As you mentioned, there are several shortcomings of peer review, including variability in the quality of reviews, the potential for undue influence by reviewers, and the possibility of fraudulent studies slipping through. In designing a new journal and its peer review process, it is important to address these shortcomings while preserving the strengths of peer review.
One approach to addressing some of the shortcomings of peer review would be to implement a modified version of the current system. For example, implementing a double-blind review system would make it more difficult for reviewers to be influenced by other factors and encourage the quality of the research to stand on its own merits. Additionally, providing reviewers with clear guidelines and requirements for their reviews, as well as holding them accountable for the quality of their work, could help ensure that reviews are thorough and objective.
Another approach could be to implement a more collaborative and open peer review system, such as the one used by some medical journals. In this system, reviewers are encouraged to engage in a dialogue with authors throughout the review process, providing feedback on multiple drafts of the paper and working together to improve the quality of the research. This could help ensure that the final publication is of high quality and reflects the input of multiple experts in the field.
Hello Dr Eric Charles Prichard
I agree with your comment about peer review. While it has some disadvantages - and some of the suggestions before me were excellent - we really depend on it for the current system of journal articles and journals. We have to accept the good and the bad points, together.
https://www.jmu.edu/uwc/files/link-library/peer_review/peer_review_1-benefits-and-drawbacks-of-peer-review.pdf
- Badges
- Science method