Reviewer training for improving grant and journal peer review (Papers: Jan-Ole Hesselberg | November 2023)
Abstract Background Funders and scientific journals use peer review to decide which projects to fund or articles to publish. Reviewer
Abstract Background Funders and scientific journals use peer review to decide which projects to fund or articles to publish. Reviewer
Abstract Background There is a power imbalance between authors and reviewers in single-blind peer review. We explored how switching from
In only a few years, cOAlition S has already made considerable changes to the scientific publishing landscape and systems. It doesn’t seem too long ago that the big academic publishers were intractable behemoths that could not be reasoned with and that made obscene levels of profit. The coalition’s work has already changed that, and they are embarking on promoting an even more radical change. This is an excellent vision of how scientific publishing must change to better match life in the 21st century.
It is not hard to see the signs of peer review in trouble. It is struggling with a crippling workload as the number of new papers for the review grows at an exponential rate. There are also indications that a lack of diversity among reviewers seriously undermines the process. Even though artificial intelligence tools offer a tempting solution, their bloopers and hallucinations are troubling. To date, most of the conversation about peer review and artificial intelligence has related to detecting the undisclosed use of AI tools in preparing outputs, but with much less said about its use in the conduct of peer reviews. This thought-provoking piece, published by Inside Higher Ed in October 2023, looks at whether AI can be helpful if it is used to support the work of peer reviewers.
Abstract Background Retraction is an essential procedure for correcting scientific literature and informing readers about articles containing significant errors or
Peer review is often spoken of reverently and held up as a hallmark of quality in academic research. But it is important to remember that its failing are oft-discussed (their bias, the time taken, the lack of diversity and sometimes adversarial tone). They are struggling with the exponential growth in the number of publications, and Albert Einstein refused to submit his work for peer review. This Scholarly Kitchen piece reflects on the degree to which peer review is so important at the moment, but it is definitely a moment to consider how it might be improved.
Open Peer Review is gaining prominence in attention and use, but to responsibly open up peer review, there is an
This excellent Scholarly Kitchen piece looks at the role that artificial intelligence could play in peer review. It offers some very sensible and practical strategies. The suggestions here do not require science-fiction, they are not an imaginable near future, but something we could be doing right now. This is an approach that plays to the strength of humans and of artificial intelligence.