+1 Recommend
    • Review: found
    Is Open Access

    Review of 'Peer review – issues, limitations, and future development'

    Peer review – issues, limitations, and future developmentCrossref
    The article discuss in clear, objective and entertaining manner, importants aspects of peer review
    Average rating:
        Rated 5 of 5.
    Level of importance:
        Rated 5 of 5.
    Level of validity:
        Rated 4 of 5.
    Level of completeness:
        Rated 5 of 5.
    Level of comprehensibility:
        Rated 5 of 5.
    Competing interests:

    Reviewed article

    • Record: found
    • Abstract: found
    • Article: found
    Is Open Access

    Peer review – issues, limitations, and future development

    Abstract Peer review is almost universally seen as the crux of scientific journal publishing. The role of peer reviewers is (1) to help avoid unnecessary errors in the published article, and (2) to judge publication-worthiness (in the journal that arranges for the review). This happens. Sometimes. But the notion of peer review is rather vague, and since most of it is anonymous, it is very difficult – arguably impossible – for researchers to know if the articles they read have been reliably peer reviewed and which criteria have been used to come to the decision to accept for publication. On top of that, peer review is very expensive. Not the peer review itself, as it is mostly done by researchers without being paid for it, but the process as arranged by publishers. This has several underlying causes, but it is clear that the actual cost of technically publishing an article is but a fraction of the average APC (Article Processing Charge) income or per-article subscription revenues publishers routinely realize. Some (e.g. Richard Smith, ex-Editor of the British Medical Journal) advocate abolishing peer review altogether. This is certainly not without merit, but even without abolishing it, there are ways to make peer review more reliable and transparent, and much cheaper to the scientific community.

      Review information

      This work has been published open access under Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Conditions, terms of use and publishing policy can be found at www.scienceopen.com.

      Peer review,Scientific publishing,Open access

      Review text

      I enjoyed reading this article. The author presents the negative characteristics of traditional peer review process, also presents an innovative form of peer review, the "PEER REVIEW BY ENDORSEMENT". In this process the author invite 2 reviewers and when these peers endorse its publication they do so openly, fully disclosing their identities. This innovation shoud be taken with care. Although some rules are commented by the author, the friend-bias could be present. Ideally, the invited reviewers should not have been co authors of any article or have been in the same institution, or have been classmates at the master's or doctorate. Declaration of this information should be mandatory in order to improve the transparency of this innovative form of peer review.


      Comment on this review