Modern scholarship depends on the peer review process. Experts scrutinize the evidence, research and arguments before they are published in an academic journal.
There are problems with the way the modern peer review system works. It can be slow and opaque and run on volunteers.
One of us expressed her frustration at the difficulties of finding peer reviewers on the social networking site. We had a huge crowd-sourced collection of criticisms of peer review and suggestions for how to make it better.
As a journal editor, reading that people are publishing and not participating in reviewing is hard to hear. It is becoming increasingly difficult to find reviewers and this is creating significant delays in publishing timelines. #AcademicChatter @AcademicChatter https://t.co/FMFeqFnsrm
— Kelly-Ann Allen, PhD #belonging #schoolbelonging (@drkellyallen) June 6, 2022
There is a lot of work to be done to make peer review more fair. Below are our full findings.
The peer review system has some challenges.
Peer reviews can be exploitative.
The companies that publish academic journals make a lot of money. Authors, editors and peer reviewers give their time and effort on a voluntary basis.
A small percentage of researchers do most of the work in peer review. In 2015, only 20 percent of researchers performed up to 94 percent of the peer review.
A lack of transparency is one of the challenges.
Researchers don't know who is looking at their work and reviewers don't know who is looking at their work. The process can be less open and accountable because of this.
The quality of the reviews may be affected by the lack of transparency.
Peer review is the final challenge.
When a researcher submits a paper to a journal, they may face a long wait for the journal to review and publish it. Research can be published a year or more after it's submitted.
Everyone is affected by this delay. It means that leaders may be making decisions based on outdated evidence. Delays can make it hard for scholars to get promoted or tenure.
The delays are usually caused by a shortage of reviewers, according to scholars. Since the start of the COVID-19 Pandemic, many academics have reported that their workload is making it harder for them to take part in peer review.
Many journals rely on US and European reviewers, which limits the size and diversity of the pool of reviewers.
What can we do? Most of the constructive suggestions came from three different categories.
Peer reviews should have better incentives.
The journals of the American Economic Association already do this. Fast-track reviews, publication fee vouchers, and free subscriptions could be offered by journals.
New problems might be created by journals that offer incentives.
One suggestion is that universities could do a better job of acknowledging peer review as part of the academic workload.
Some people said tenured scholars should review a certain number of articles. A recent study found that some 140 journals in Australia alone stopped publishing between 2011 and 2021.
There should be no conflicts of interest. It would be easier to find reviewers if there was a database of experts.
Journals can improve how they recruit reviewers, according to many respondents. The method or content expertise of the expert reviewers could be used to pick them.
Journals should do more to tailor their invitations to target the most relevant experts with a simpler process to accept or reject the offer according to respondents.
More non-tenured scholars, PhD researchers, people working in related industries, and retired experts should be hired. Increased representation for women and underrepresented minorities would be a good start.
A growing movement towards more open peer review processes may lead to a more human and transparent approach to reviewing. All decisions, review letters, and voluntary identification of peer reviewers are made public by Royal Society Open Science.
It was suggested to give higher priority to time-sensitive research.
There is a need for systemic changes within the peer review process.
There are many ways to improve the process for the benefit of scholars. It will be up to journals, publishers and universities to create a fair and inclusive system.
The authors would like to thank Emily Rainsford and David V. Smith for their contributions to the original article.
Kelly-Ann Allen, Associate Professor, School of Educational Psychology and Counseling, Faculty of Education, Monash University, is one of a group of people who are professors.
Under a Creative Commons license, this article is re-posted. The original article is worth a read.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
