Login
Create Account

Current and evolving models of peer review

Fresco-Santalla, Ana and Hernández-Pérez, Tony Current and evolving models of peer review. The Serials Librarian, 2014, vol. 67, n. 4, pp. 373-398. [Journal article (Paginated)]

Text
Models_of_Peer_Review_AFresco-Santalla_THernadez-Perez.pdf
Download (1MB)

Alternative locations: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2014.985415

English abstract

New models of scientific publishing and new ways of practicing peer review have injected a recent dynamism into the scholarly communication system. In this article, we delineate the context of the traditional peer review model, reflect upon some of the first experiences with open peer review and forecast some of the challenges that new models for peer review will have to meet. Our findings suggest that the peer review function has the potential to be divorced from the journal system, so that the responsibility to judge the significance of a paper may no longer fall exclusively to formal reviewers, but may be assessed by the whole readership community.

Item type:	Journal article (Paginated)
Keywords:	peer review, open peer review, pre-publication review, post-publication review, scholarly publishing, scholarly communication, peer review abierto, peer review pre-publicación, comunicación científica, edición científica
Subjects:	A. Theoretical and general aspects of libraries and information. B. Information use and sociology of information > BG. Information dissemination and diffusion. E. Publishing and legal issues. > EZ. None of these, but in this section. I. Information treatment for information services
Depositing user:	Ana Fresco-Santalla
Date deposited:	02 Mar 2015 11:55
Last modified:	02 Mar 2015 11:55
URI:	http://hdl.handle.net/10760/24517

Check full metadata for this record

References

Aguillo, Isidro F. 2011. Google Scholar: no es oro todo lo que reluce [Google Scholar: All that glitters is not gold]. Anuario ThinkEPI 5: 211–215. http://www.thinkepi.net/tag/citas (accessed September 8, 2014).

Anderson, Rick, and Kate B. Moore. 2013. Is the journal dead? Possible futures for serial scholarship. The Serials Librarian 64 (1-4): 67–79. doi:10.1080/0361526X.2013.759877. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0361526X.2013.759877 (accessed June 17, 2014).

Baez, Marcos, Fabio Casati, Aliaksandr Birukou, and Maurizio Marchese. 2010. Liquid journals: knowledge dissemination in the web era. http://eprints.biblio.unitn.it/1814/1/028.pdf (accessed October 2, 2014).

Beware the Impact Factor. 2013. Nature Materials 12(2): 89–89. doi:10.1038/nmat3566. http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nmat3566 (accessed September 8, 2014).

Björk, Bo-Christer. 2011. A study of innovative features in scholarly open access journals. Journal of Medical Internet Research 13(4): e115. doi:10.2196/jmir.1802. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3278101&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract (accessed June 17, 2014).

Björk, Bo-Christer, and David Solomon. 2013. The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Journal of Informetrics 7(4): 914–923. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2013.09.001. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157713000734 (accessed June 17, 2014).

Bohannon, John. 2013. Who’s afraid of peer review? Science 342 (6154): 60–65. doi:10.1126/science.342.6154.60 (accessed September 19, 2014).

Brembs, Björn, and Marcus Munafò. 2013. Deep impact: Unintended consequences of journal rank. http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3748 (accessed September 19, 2014).

Byrnes, Jarrett E. K., Edward B. Baskerville, Bruce Caron, Cameron Neylon, Carol Tenopir, Mark Schildhauer, Amber Budden, Lonnie Aarssen, and Christopher Lortie. 2013. The four pillars of scholarly publishing: The future and a foundation. PeerJ PrePrints 1: e11v1. doi:10.7287/peerj.preprints.11 (accessed June 17, 2014).

Cabezas-Clavijo, Álvaro, and Daniel Torres-Salinas. 2010. Indicadores de uso y participación en las revistas científicas 2.0: El caso de PLoS One [Indicators for usage and participation in scientific journals 2.0: The case of PloS ONE]. El Profesional de La Informacion 19(4): 431–434. doi:10.3145/epi.2010.jul.14. http://elprofesionaldelainformacion.metapress.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.3145/epi.2010.jul.14 (accessed October 2, 2014).

Campanario, Juan Miguel. 2002. El Sistema de revisión por expertos (peer review): Muchos problemas y pocas soluciones [The peer-review system: lot of problems, few solutions]. Revista Española de Documentación Científica 25 (3): 267–285.

Casati, Fabio, Fausto Giunchiglia, and Maurizio Marchese. 2007. Publish and perish: Why the current publication and review model is killing research and wasting your money. Ubiquity 3. doi:10.1145/1226694.1226695 (accessed June 17, 2014).

Cassella, M., and L. Calvi. 2010. New journal models and publishing perspectives in the evolving digital environment. IFLA Journal 36 (1): 7–15. doi:10.1177/0340035209359559. http://ifl.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0340035209359559 (accessed June 17, 2014).

Correia, Ana Maria Ramalho, and José Carlos Teixeira. 2005. Reforming scholarly publishing and knowledge communication: From the advent of the scholarly journal to the challenges of open access. Online Information Review 29 (4): 349–364. doi:10.1108/14684520510617802. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/14684520510617802 (accessed June 17, 2014).

Dall’Aglio, Paolo. 2006. Peer review and journal models. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608307 (accessed September 19, 2014).

Davis, Phil. 2012. Is PeerJ membership publishing sustainable? The Scholarly Kitchen. http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/06/14/is-peerj-membership-publishing-sustainable/ (accessed October 2, 2014).

De Vrieze, Jop. 2012. Online social network seeks to overhaul peer review in scientific publishing. Science. http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/01/online-social-network-seeks-to.html?ref=hp (accessed October 2, 2014).

Delgado-López-Cózar, Emilio, and Rafael Ruiz-Pérez. 2009. La comunicación y edición científica: fundamentos conceptuales [Scholarly communication and publishing: conceptual foundations]. In Homenaje a Isabel de Torres Ramírez: Estudios de Documentación dedicados a su memoria [Tribute to Isabel de Torres Ramírez. Documentation articles dedicated to her memory], ed. Concepción García Caro and Josefina Vílchez Pardo, 131–150. Granada: Editorial Universidad de Granada.

Fang, Ferric C., and Arturo Casadevall. 2011. Retracted science and the retraction index. Infection and Immunity 79(10): 3855–3859. doi:10.1128/IAI.05661-11. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3187237&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract (accessed September 19, 2014).

Fang, Ferric C., R. Grant Steen, and Arturo Casadevall. 2012. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109(42): 17029–17033. doi:10.1073/pnas.1212247109 (accessed September 19, 2014).

Florian, Răzvan V. 2012. Aggregating post-publication peer reviews and ratings. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 6. doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00031. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3357530&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract (accessed August 5, 2014).

Fox, Jeremy, and Owen L. Petchey. 2010. Pubcreds: fixing the peer review process by ‘privatizing’ the reviewer commons. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 91: 325–334. doi:10.1890/0012-9623-91.3.325 (accessed October 2, 2014).

Grieneisen, Michael L., and Minghua Zhang. 2012. A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature. PLoS ONE 7(10): e44118. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0044118. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3480361&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract (accessed September 19, 2014).

Harold, Simon. 2012a. Supporting a new way to peer-review. BioMed Central Blog. http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcseriesblog/2012/11/20/supporting-a-new-way-to-peer-review/ (accessed December 4, 2014).

Harold, Simon. 2012b. BioMed Central journals supporting Peerage of Science.” BioMed Central Blog. http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2012/11/20/biomed-central-journals-supporting-peerage-of-science/ (accessed October 2, 2014).

Hettyey, Attila, Matteo Griggio, Marlene Mann, Shirley Raveh, Franziska C. Schaedelin, Kerstin E Thonhauser, Michaela Thoss, et al. 2012. Peerage of Science: Will it work? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 27(4): 189–90. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2012.01.005. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22325345 (accessed October 2, 2014).

Hunter, Jane. 2012. Post-publication peer review: Opening up scientific conversation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 6. doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00063. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3431010&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract (accessed October 2, 2014).

In search of credit. 2013. Nature 493(5). doi:10.1038/493005a. http://www.nature.com/news/in-search-of-credit-1.12117 (accessed September 19, 2014).

Keane, Edward. 2011. Bundles, Big Deals, and the copyright wars: What can academic libraries learn from the record industry crash? The Serials Librarian 61(1): 33–57. doi:10.1080/0361526X.2011.584247. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0361526X.2011.584247 (accessed June 17, 2014).

Kling, Rob, and Ewa Callahan. 2003. Electronic journals, the internet, and scholarly communication. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 37: 127–177.

Kriegeskorte, Nikolaus. 2012. Open evaluation: A vision for entirely transparent post-publication peer review and rating for science. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 6. doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00079. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3473231&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract (accessed June 17, 2014).

Kriegeskorte, Nikolaus, Alexander Walther, and Diana Deca. 2012. An emerging consensus for open evaluation: 18 visions for the future of scientific publishing. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 6. doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00094. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23162460 (accessed June 17, 2014).

Maron, Nancy L., and K. Kirby Smith. 2008. Current models of digital scholarly communication: Results of an investigation conducted by Ithaka for the Association of Research Libraries. http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/publications/digital-sc-models-report-2008.pdf (accessed September 19, 2014).

Mulligan, Adrian, and Louise Hall. 2013. Peer review in a changing world : An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64 (1): 132–161. doi:10.1002/asi.22798 (accessed December 4, 2014).

Nosek, Brian A., and Yoav Bar-Anan. 2012. Scientific utopia: I. Opening scientific communication. Psychological Inquiry 23 (3): 217–243. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2012.692215. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1047840X.2012.692215 (accessed October 2, 2014).

Pattinson, Damian. 2012. PLoS ONE launches a new peer review form. EveryONE. http://blogs.plos.org/everyone/2012/12/13/plos-one-launches-a-new-peer-review-form/ (accessed December 4, 2014).

Pöschl, U. 2010. Interactive open access publishing and public peer review: The effectiveness of transparency and self-regulation in scientific quality assurance. IFLA Journal 36(1): 40–46. doi:10.1177/0340035209359573. http://ifl.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0340035209359573 (accessed October 2, 2014).

Pöschl, U. 2012. Multi-stage open peer review: Scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 6. doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00033. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3389610&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract (accessed October 2, 2014).

Priem, Jason. 2013. Scholarship: Beyond the paper. Nature 495: 437–440. doi:10.1038/495437a (accessed August 5, 2014).

Priem, Jason, and Bradley M. Hemminger. 2012. Decoupling the scholarly journal. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 6. doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00019. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3319915&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract (accessed June 17, 2014).

Procter, Rob, Robin Williams, James Stewart, Meik Poschen, Helene Snee, Alex Voss, and Marzieh Asgari-Targhi. 2010. Adoption and use of Web 2.0 in scholarly communications. Philosophical Transactions. Series A, Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences 368 (1926): 4039–4056. doi:10.1098/rsta.2010.0155. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20679121 (accessed September 19, 2014).

Public Library of Science. 2011. Peer review—Optimizing practices for online scholarly communication. In Peer Review in Scientific Publications. Eight Report of Session 2010-12, Volume I: Report, Together with Formal Minutes, Oral and Written Evidence, ed. House of Commons and Science and Technology Committee. London: The Stationery Office Limited. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/856/856.pdf (accessed August 5, 2014).

Roldán, Alvaro. 2010. JCR 2009. Bibliometría. http://web.archive.org/web/20131101030821/http://www.bibliometria.com/jcr-2009 (accessed December 4, 2014).

Smith, John W. T. 1999. The deconstructed journal—A new model for academic publishing. Learned Publishing 12 (2): 79–91.

Systems: An open, two-stage peer-review journal. 2006. Nature. doi:10.1038/nature04988. http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature04988.html (accessed October 2, 2014).

Tanner, R. Michael. 2007. Copyrights and the paradox of scholarly publishing. http://hdl.handle.net/10027/118 (accessed June 17, 2014).

Teixeira, Aurora A. C., and Mariana Fontes Costa. 2010. Who rules the ruler? On the misconduct of journal editors. Journal of Academic Ethics 8 (2): 111–128. doi:10.1007/s10805-010-9107-y. http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s10805-010-9107-y (accessed September 19, 2014).

Van Noorden, Richard. 2013. PLOS profits prompt revamp. Nature 503: 320–321. doi:10.1038/503320a. http://www.nature.com/news/plos-profits-prompt-revamp-1.14205 (accessed October 2, 2014).

Ware, Mark. 2008. Peer review : Benefits, perceptions and alternatives. PRC Summary Papers. London. http://www.publishingresearch.org.uk/documents/PRCsummary4Warefinal.pdf (accessed December 4, 2014).

Ware, Mark. 2011. Peer review: Recent experience and future directions. New Review of Information Networking 16 (1): 23–53. doi:10.1080/13614576.2011.566812. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13614576.2011.566812 (accessed September 19, 2014).

Ware, Mark, and Michael Mabe. 2009. The STM report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing”. Oxford, UK. http://www.stm-assoc.org/2009_10_13_MWC_STM_Report.pdf (accessed September 19, 2014).

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item

Facebook

Twitter

RSS