Innovating peer review, reconfiguring scholarly communication: an analytical overview of ongoing peer review innovation activities

Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner · Stephen Pinfield · Ludo Waltman · Helen Buckley Woods · Johanna Brumberg

39 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Documentation

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Publishing and Scholarly Communication Academic Writing and Publishing Academic Publishing and Open Access

Abstract

Purpose The study aims to provide an analytical overview of current innovations in peer review and their potential impacts on scholarly communication. Design/methodology/approach The authors created a survey that was disseminated among publishers, academic journal editors and other organizations in the scholarly communication ecosystem, resulting in a data set of 95 self-defined innovations. The authors ordered the material using a taxonomy that compares innovation projects according to five dimensions. For example, what is the object of review? How are reviewers recruited, and does the innovation entail specific review foci? Findings Peer review innovations partly pull in mutually opposed directions. Several initiatives aim to make peer review more efficient and less costly, while other initiatives aim to promote its rigor, which is likely to increase costs; innovations based on a singular notion of “good scientific practice” are at odds with more pluralistic understandings of scientific quality; and the idea of transparency in peer review is the antithesis to the notion that objectivity requires anonymization. These fault lines suggest a need for better coordination. Originality/value This paper presents original data that were analyzed using a novel, inductively developed, taxonomy. Contrary to earlier research, the authors do not attempt to gauge the extent to which peer review innovations increase the “reliability” or “quality” of reviews (as defined according to often implicit normative criteria), nor are they trying to measure the uptake of innovations in the routines of academic journals. Instead, they focus on peer review innovation activities as a distinct object of analysis.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

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

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 39 citations exist upstream.

References

1996Steps Toward an Ecology of Infrastructure: Design and Access for Large Information Spaces 2019Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories 2021The past, present and future of Registered Reports 2017What is open peer review? A systematic review 1999Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial 2004What is Originality in the Humanities and the Social Sciences?2021A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review 2017A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review

Cited by

2022Towards theorizing peer review 2024Additional experiments required: A scoping review of recent evidence on key aspects of Open Peer Review 2024Peer-review procedures as practice, decision, and governance—the road to theories of peer review 2022«I Do Not Have Time»—Is This the End of Peer Review in Public Health Sciences?2023An overview of innovations in the external peer review of journal manuscripts.

Explore the map →

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

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.