LIBRARY
[email protected] 12 December 2017
Midi de l’info scientifique
EMERGING TRENDS IN PEER-REVIEW
2
PROGRAM
• Classical peer review
• Immediate publication with no formal review
• Immediate publication with post-publication
review
• Multiphase review: mix of pre- and post-publication
review
• Portable review
3
CLASSICAL PEER REVIEW
http://archive.senseaboutscience.org/pages/peerreviewed
ucation.html
4
ADVANTAGES OF PEER-REVIEW
• Anonymity of the review process → free
expression of critical views
• No interaction among reviewers → no influence
or pressure
• Improves the quality of scientific publications:
filtering out low quality papers, catching errors,
improving the writing…
5
KEY OBJECTIONS TO
CLASSICAL PEER REVIEW
1. Delay
2. Bias against specific categories of paper
3. Social and cognitive biases
4. Unreliability
5. Inability to detect errors and fraud
6. Lack of transparency – unethical practices
7. Lack of recognition for reviewers
Walker et Rocha da Silva, 2015
6
INTERACTIONS DURING
PRE-PUBLICATION REVIEWING
• EMBO Journal: cross-peer review (referees
comment on each others’ reports)
• eLife: online consultation of other referee’s reports
• Frontiers: Collaborative Review Forum (feedbacks
between reviewers, authors and editors)
7
• a website and free service for academics to
track, verify and showcase their peer review
• Launched in 2012. In 2017: 200,000
researchers, with over 1 million reviews
8
NEW PEER-REVIEWING IMPLIES NEW
REVIEWERS
● Editors-selected Reviewers
● Author-selected Reviewers
● Volunteered Reviewers (Open Peer Commentary)
● Community/Public Review
● What kind of rewards a reviewer can get?
Jubb, 2016 & Walker et Rocha da Silva, 2015
Immediate publication with
no formal review
10
NON-COMMERCIAL PRE-PRINT SERVERS
• Papers available to readers
• No prior review or minimal «access review»
• Example: ArXiv since 1991
11
JOURNAL PUBLISHERS PREPRINT SERVERS
• Nature Precedings (stopped in 2012)
• PeerJ Preprints
Immediate publication with
post-publication review
“Publication and Peer Review are two
independent concepts”
F1000Research
13
POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW
F1000Research
14
POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW
• Distinguish the publication and the Peer
Review
• Shorten the processes
• Crossed reviews increase quality
• Reviews considered as mini publications
Kriegeskorte, 2012
15
POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW
https://f1000research.com/articles/6-1515/v4
16
POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW
https://f1000research.com/articles/6-1515/v4
17
POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW
https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/17/14675/2017/acp-17-14675-
2017.html
18
POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW
https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/17/14675/2017/acp-17-14675-
2017.html
19
OPEN REVIEW
● A review procedure in which author names AND
reviewer names are revealed
○ But reviewer identities are not necessary
revealed
○ Sometimes only an option
● Open Reports (Full reports are published)
● Increases interaction between authors and reviewers
which facilitates constructive feedback et dialog
Jubb 2016, Ross-Hellauer, 2017 & Walker et Rocha da Silva, 2015
Multiphase review:
mix of pre- and post-publication review
21
FRONTIERS IN NEUROSCIENCE
• Tiering system: «democratic» selection of
outstanding research
• «Tier 1»: publication after normal pre-
publication review
• «Tier 2»: invite authors with top viewed and
downloaded papers to write a «Focused
Review»
22
PRE-PUBLICATION REVIEW
+ IN CHANNEL COMMENTARY
• Out of a sample of 53 journals using formal review, 24
provide the option to readers to comment on the article
• Only 17% of articles published in PLOS ONE had
comments
23
PRE-PUBLICATION REVIEW
+ OUT OF CHANNEL COMMENTARY
Academic social networks and repositories for
documents published elsewhere:
• F1000 prime
• PubMed Commons
• Pubpeer.com
• ResearchGate
Portable review
25
PORTABLE REVIEW: «RECYCLING» OF
PREVIOUS REVIEWING REPORTS
• Reports from the review by a 1st journal
(which rejected the paper) are passed on to a
2nd journal
• Often for journals from the same publishers
(Nature Publishing Group, Biomedcentral...)
26
COMMERCIAL PORTABLE REVIEW
• 1st step: Authors submit their papers for
review by a commercial review service
• 2nd step: authors (or the commercial service)
submit the paper along with the reports to a
journal
• Axios/Rubriq: charge authors a fee
• Peerage of science: receives revenue only
from journals and publishers
27
TAKE HOME MESSAGE
• 2 major trends:
- Repository with only access review (e.g. ArXiv)
- Publishers with non-selective review (e.g. PLoS
ONE, Frontiers…)
• New innovative forms, still rare:
- Open review, which remove reviewer anonymity
- Interactive review between reviewers, authors and
editors
- Informal reader commentary
28
BIBLIOGRAPHY
• ACP. Consulté le 12 décembre 2017. https://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-
physics.net/index.html.
• F1000Research. Consulté le 12 décembre 2017. https://f1000research.com/.
• Hunter, J. (2012). Post-Publication Peer Review: Opening Up Scientific
Conversation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 6.
• Jubb, M. (2016). Peer review: The current landscape and future trends: Peer
review landscape. Learned Publishing 29, 13–21.
• Kriegeskorte, N. (2012). Open Evaluation: A Vision for Entirely Transparent Post-
Publication Peer Review and Rating for Science. Frontiers in Computational
Neuroscience 6.
• Ross-Hellauer, T. (2017). What is open peer review? A systematic review.
F1000Research 6, 588.
• Sense about Science. Consulté le 12 décembre 2017.
http://archive.senseaboutscience.org/index.html.
• Walker, R., and Rocha da Silva, P. (2015). Emerging trends in peer reviews - a
survey. Frontiers in Neuroscience 9.
Recommended
