16 What Could Improve the Peer Review Process? Course Hereo

The Editorial Board Members at Communications Biology are in the unique position of being authors, reviewers, and editors, so I asked a few of them to weigh in on the future of peer review.

Their responses have been edited for length and clarity. You will meet that they concord on the need to reduce unconscious bias and to give reviewers credit for their time and effort. However, each places emphasis on dissimilar aspects for improving peer review.

Editorial Board Members who contributed to this post:

Katie Davis, Academy of York, UK

Georgios Giamas, University of Sussex, UK

Quan-Xing Liu, East China Normal Academy, China

In your view, what have been some of the best innovations in peer review?

Katie Davis: Double blind reviews without a doubt. It is well known that unconscious bias affects the review procedure and double-bullheaded peer review is such a good solution. I hope it will eventually be an pick for all journals. Completely open reviews are some other selection hither only I have concerns about confidentiality, peculiarly with regard to junior researchers feeling unable to be honest for fearfulness of retaliation.

Georgios Giamas: I am not sure if they are any considerable innovations. However, I like the interactive review evaluation that some journals comprise.

Quan-Xing Liu: Each reviewer has his own opinion and scope for the scientific standards, equally has been outlined in Prof. Raymond Goldstein's commentary on peer review in biological journals. In many cases, two referees volition return contradictory reports for the same manuscript. This problem is being solved by some journals (e.1000., eLife, Communications Biology) with novel peer reviewer processes. The essence of the eLife review process is an online discussion betwixt the referees and the handling editor of a newspaper, so that they arrive at a single consensus study—a "conclusion letter"—that is sent to the authors, which avoids the problem of conflicting reports.

How would you like to run into peer review evolve in the brusque- and long-term?

Katie Davis: I would like to meet authors required to provide information in a usable, machine readable format. Not necessarily to be provided on publication, as at that place may exist good reasons not to make all data available, merely I remember information technology is important for the reviewers to exist able to check lawmaking and data for quality. It would also speed upwardly the process as information technology causes significant delays when a reviewer has to request some of the data in order to be able to complete their review.

Another consideration is how we tin can integrate preprints, peer review and the final finished products into a more open access concatenation while maintaining confidentiality and quality. I would certainly like to run across more journals encouraging preprints as these is particularly valuable for early career researchers.

Georgios Giamas: I would like to see shorter turnaround time. I also recollect that editors' judgment/conclusion should not but rely on some reviewers' comments. Instead, a more than agile role and higher responsibility for the editor is needed.

Quan-Xing Liu: Peer review is an indispensable process to scientific evolution that ensures the quality of the articles and accuracy of researched experiments since it was start employed in 1665 past the Royal Order's Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society. I have no idea how to change the peer review procedure in the brusque- and long-term in the future, but I would say that evaluating another researcher's work hones critical thinking skills to both authors and reviewers. In that location is also the demand for editors to make decisions that are not simply based on "counting votes" for rejection or revision. This is working well in our peer review process at Communications Biology. From my experiences, the more constructive feedback comes from experts from unlike bookish backgrounds, and so I equally an editor effort to seek various reviewers to evaluate our manuscripts.

What role would y'all like authors, reviewers, and editors play in peer review moving forrad?

Katie Davis: One thing I would like to see is authors required to provide reviewer suggestions (with certain guidelines/restrictions with regard to who may/may not be selected). They know their piece of work the all-time and this could exist actually valuable. Editors would manifestly still need to assign additional reviewers to residue any potential bias merely I recall this could improve the ceremoniousness of reviewers any given manuscript.

Georgios Giamas: Authors should answer to the point and not 'diplomatically' avoid certain requests if they are non able to perform them. Reviewers should reply faster and take realistic demands. Editors should take additional parameters into consideration when deciding about a manuscript. For example, the overall fourth dimension spent on the whole review process, which translates to money for the specific lab. Also, editors need to keep in mind that but requesting more information is not always appropriate.

Quan-Xing Liu: Peer review is an indispensable process to scientific development that ensure the quality of the articles and accurateness of researched experiments. Of course, authors should exist the champions of their own work. This also is true for myself. Every bit an author, I try to get detailed feedback on both major and minor points from referees and editors because I desire to improve my work and ultimately publish it. However, reviewers often seem to play the part of error-finder, but being a reviewer is a powerful role, helping authors to improve their original manuscript to present a more complete picture, clearer figures, and a more widely accepted perception to reader. Editors deed as a span betwixt authors and reviewers, and academic editors are able to provide expert suggestions to the in-house editorial team.

How tin nosotros maintain high quality in peer review in new models of peer review?

Katie Davis: I call up keeping some level of choice is important here. There may exist practiced reasons for inferior researchers to wish to maintain anonymity when reviewing. Enforcing complete open reviews could result in a decrease in uptake of review invitations, and information technology'southward already difficult to secure reviewers. For open reviews where reviewers' comments are public I call up editors need to be conscientious not to publish any comments that are not effective. Unfortunately I've seen plenty of comments (every bit an author and as an editor) that should non be fabricated public.

Georgios Giamas: Editors should not ship other manuscripts to reviewers that have already reviewed papers from the same group (whether they have accepted or rejected them), for a specific period of fourth dimension (e.m. for ~2 years). Too, and this is more important for papers that are rejected, authors should have access to the comments that are currently beingness sent but to the editors.

Quan-Xing Liu: I would suggest that referees and editors work together to write the conclusion letter. Non all comments are equivalently important to assistance authors amend their manuscripts. Transparent peer review is another excellent way to push referees to provide their key criticisms and to help readers to see unlike perspectives, and which concerns and revisions are important in the published manufactures.

How would you like to see peer review rewarded?

Katie Davis: This is an interesting point, every bit it raises the issue of how we can reward peer review whilst still maintaining anonymity (if desired). Journals could record and publish the number of reviews each reviewer has contributed (though not the manuscript reviewed without explicit permission). It might still exist necessary to retrieve carefully about anonymity here in case individual reviewers tin can be identified. This is probably more of an issue if reviews are open as I feel that this could atomic number 82 to a loss of anonymity. While completely open up and transparent reviews seem like the ideal, I do recall there's a take chances that some reviewers - disproportionately junior academics - may feel unable to be completely honest in their reviews without the security of anonymity.

I recollect some kind of financial advantage could be appropriate, not in the form of greenbacks, but perhaps a small credit towards future publishing costs? Personally, I would find this to be a huge incentive, even if the credit is fairly pocket-size. Credits could even be transferable within publishers, e.1000., a credit for reviewing a Communications Biology manuscript and a credit for reviewing a Nature Communications manuscript could be combined as ii credits for whatever Nature Research group journal. In an attempt to speed up the review process, the advantage might merely exist credited if the review is returned inside the agreed-upon deadline(!).

Georgios Giamas: Some journals already have the 'review of the month' recognition. Since present authors are receiving many requests for review, proper motivation should be given. Sadly or not, it should be a fiscal advantage:  for example, x corporeality for completing iii-5 reviews, y amount for >5…within a specific period of fourth dimension.

Quan-Xing Liu: This is an innovative suggestion. But it would depend on the benefit being offered. I would suggest that peer reviewers providing high-quality reports could publish i of their manuscripts in Communications Biology (a model used by other journals, similar PNAS). This could encourage referees to return thorough, constructive reports and to join reviewer teams.

How can we expand and better the pool of available reviewers?

Katie Davis: Finding reviewers can be very challenging so I call back this is a really important consideration. Databases of willing reviewers is one option. Prospective reviewers would ideally sign up to a fundamental database that editors can access, though of course we are left with the question of who would pay for and maintain the database? The other mode to do it would exist for journals to maintain their own databases, which could potentially be a single database for each publisher to reduce the workload on both editors and reviewers. I have seen editors put calls out on Twitter for prospective reviewers but I am unsure how successful this approach is in practise; I certainly have never received review invitations every bit a upshot of responding to one of these calls but perhaps my proper noun is now in the journal database for a time to come invitation.

Georgios Giamas: Meliorate organise reviewer databases to include the average time that reviewers spent for the review process and the quality (score one-v) of the review reports. Sister journals, or all the journals belonging to a publisher, should be able to share and have access to such databases and not reinvent the bicycle.

Quan-Xing Liu: This largely depends on the reputation of the journal. Rewarding reviewers in some way could too be useful for attracting reviewers.

beckhamgrothe91.blogspot.com

Source: https://ecoevocommunity.nature.com/posts/53842-the-future-of-peer-review

Share this post