Literature DB >> 32449322

Innovative Strategies for Peer Review.

Edward Barroga1.   

Abstract

Peer review is a crucial part of research and publishing. However, it remains imperfect and suffers from bias, lack of transparency, and professional jealousy. It is also overburdened by an increasing quantity of complex papers against the stagnant pool of reviewers, causing delays in peer review. Additionally, many medical, nursing, and healthcare educators, peer reviewers, and authors may not be completely familiar with the current changes in peer review. Moreover, reviewer education and training have unfortunately remained lacking. This is especially crucial since current initiatives to improve the review process are now influenced by factors other than academic needs. Thus, increasing attention has recently focused on ways of streamlining the peer review process and implementing alternative peer-review methods using new technologies and open access models. This article aims to give an overview of the innovative strategies for peer review and to consider perspectives that may be helpful in introducing changes to peer review. Critical assessments of peer review innovations and incentives based on past and present experiences are indispensable. A theoretical appraisal must be balanced by a realistic appraisal of the ethical roles of all stakeholders in enhancing the peer review process. As the peer review system is far from being perfect, identifying and developing core competencies among reviewers, continuing education of researchers, reviewer education and training, and professional engagement of the scientific community in various disciplines may help bridge gaps in an imperfect but indispensable peer review system.
© 2020 The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bias; Education; Open Access Publishing; Peer Review; Peer Reviewer; Publications

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32449322     DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e138

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Korean Med Sci        ISSN: 1011-8934            Impact factor:   2.153


  3 in total

1.  Opportunities to enhance peer review.

Authors:  Sarah Fraser
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2022-09       Impact factor: 3.025

Review 2.  Gender bias in academia: A lifetime problem that needs solutions.

Authors:  Anaïs Llorens; Athina Tzovara; Ludovic Bellier; Ilina Bhaya-Grossman; Aurélie Bidet-Caulet; William K Chang; Zachariah R Cross; Rosa Dominguez-Faus; Adeen Flinker; Yvonne Fonken; Mark A Gorenstein; Chris Holdgraf; Colin W Hoy; Maria V Ivanova; Richard T Jimenez; Soyeon Jun; Julia W Y Kam; Celeste Kidd; Enitan Marcelle; Deborah Marciano; Stephanie Martin; Nicholas E Myers; Karita Ojala; Anat Perry; Pedro Pinheiro-Chagas; Stephanie K Riès; Ignacio Saez; Ivan Skelin; Katarina Slama; Brooke Staveland; Danielle S Bassett; Elizabeth A Buffalo; Adrienne L Fairhall; Nancy J Kopell; Laura J Kray; Jack J Lin; Anna C Nobre; Dylan Riley; Anne-Kristin Solbakk; Joni D Wallis; Xiao-Jing Wang; Shlomit Yuval-Greenberg; Sabine Kastner; Robert T Knight; Nina F Dronkers
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2021-07-07       Impact factor: 18.688

Review 3.  Fundamental Shifts in Research, Ethics and Peer Review in the Era of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Authors:  Edward Barroga; Glafera Janet Matanguihan
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2020-11-23       Impact factor: 2.153

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.