Increasing challenges for an effective peer-review process

Abstract

The origin of the peer-review process dates back to the eighteenth century when medical societies in Great Britain created committees to review articles submitted to their specialty journals [1]. By the latter half of the twentieth century the peer-review process became an institutionalized component of the scholarly process. Since that time new medical knowledge has increased exponentially, and there has been an ever-increasing volume of both traditional print and on-line journals. The peer-review process is critical to the validity of scientific publishing as evidenced by the explosion of various predatory publishers of on-line journals with limited and questionable peer review [2]. Several factors have combined to create increasing challenges for the peer-review process. The pool of qualified reviewers, frequently individuals who are academically based, face an increasing number of peer-review requests due to the increasing number of both journals and submissions in their area(s) of expertise. Meanwhile, these same individuals facing increasing demands of their primary job, beitclinicaldemandsandfinancialconstraints,ortheirbasic scienceresearchprogram.Someexpertspointoutthatifthey weretoacceptallpeer-reviewrequests,theywouldbeableto donothingelsebutpeer-reviewmanuscripts,leavingnotime to complete their own research and manuscripts. The peerreview process is a volunteer activity, and while it is considered in the academic promotion process, it lacks significant academic credit in relation to the time commitment required. Some journals have begun offering continuing

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 9 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.