- \n
- The systems for finding, training, and incentivising peer reviewers may need to change to meet current demand.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/Peer-review.jpeg?resize=1024%2C683&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\nPeer review has developed as a means of establishing quality control in research, but can current processes keep up with rapidly increasing research volumes? In a recent Nature <\/em>Career Feature article<\/a>, Amber Dance<\/a> reported on the difficulties and ideas for overhauling the system, drawing on the experiences of a range of stakeholders in the peer review process.<\/p>\n
Several issues with current peer review processes were raised:<\/p>\n
- \n
- It takes time<\/strong>. Aczel et al<\/a> estimated that in 2020, reviewers worldwide spent over 130 million hours (nearly 15,000 years) reviewing articles.<\/li>\n
- It is often unpaid work<\/strong>. While this might reduce the risk of bias, it makes peer reviewing unfeasible for some.<\/li>\n
- Reviewers are becoming more selective<\/strong> about the work they are willing to take on<\/strong>. Some now only peer review for not-for-profit journals or preprints, where they focus on the science rather than suitability for a given journal.<\/li>\n
- There is underrepresentation<\/strong> of junior researchers and those from countries with less well-established research infrastructure.<\/li>\n
- It can be a slow process<\/strong>, sometimes resulting in delays to publication and the ability for research to shape policy, for example. In some cases, processes may even drive researchers to leave academia altogether.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n
Reviewers are becoming more selective about the work they are willing to take on. Some now only peer review for not-for-profit journals or preprints.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Dance explored opinions on how peer review could change, such as:<\/p>\n
- \n
- Incentives for researchers\u2019 time<\/strong>. This might vary from a free journal subscription to the more controversial issue of journals paying for reviews<\/a>. Other incentives might include giving more recognition to named peer reviewers<\/a>.<\/li>\n
- Peer review training for early-career researchers and those in lower-income<\/strong> countries<\/strong>, to increase the pool and diversity of potential reviewers.<\/li>\n
- Increasing the use of technology<\/strong> to check aspects of statistics or methods, for example.<\/li>\n
- Reducing the number of reviews needed<\/strong>\u00a0through increased screening of submissions prior to peer review, allowing authors to \u2018recycle\u2019 reviews for a related journal submission, or enabling submission of reviews collected before an initial submission (such as those from eLife<\/em> reviewed preprints<\/a>).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Drawing on these perspectives, many changes could be made to peer review \u2013 we look forward to seeing how processes may evolve in future.<\/p>\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2013<\/p>\n
- Peer review training for early-career researchers and those in lower-income<\/strong> countries<\/strong>, to increase the pool and diversity of potential reviewers.<\/li>\n
- It is often unpaid work<\/strong>. While this might reduce the risk of bias, it makes peer reviewing unfeasible for some.<\/li>\n
- It takes time<\/strong>. Aczel et al<\/a> estimated that in 2020, reviewers worldwide spent over 130 million hours (nearly 15,000 years) reviewing articles.<\/li>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/Byline_PubPlan.png?resize=618%2C75&ssl=1\")
<\/a><\/p>\n