Peer review: The current landscape and future trends

This paper is based on research commissioned by the Wellcome Trust in 2015 and catalogues current initiatives and trends in the systems and processes surrounding peer review. It considers issues such as open and interactive reviews, post‐publication comments and ratings, and the platforms provided by both publishers and other organisations to support such activity; third‐party peer review platforms; and measures from publishers and others to provide more recognition and rewards for peer reviewers. It also speculates on likely key trends in peer review for the future.

[1]  F. Godlee,et al.  Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial , 1999, BMJ.

[2]  A. Casadevall,et al.  Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[3]  Scholarly Communication and Peer Review The Current Landscape and Future Trends , 2015 .

[4]  E. Wagenmakers,et al.  Erroneous analyses of interactions in neuroscience: a problem of significance , 2011, Nature Neuroscience.

[5]  C. Begley,et al.  Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research , 2012, Nature.

[6]  Lisa Bero,et al.  Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[7]  A. Malviya.  Peer review in scientific publications , 2012 .

[8]  T. Jefferson,et al.  Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. , 2007, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[9]  Priego Ernesto.  The Future of Scholarly Scientific Communication Part 2 - A #FSSC Archive , 2015 .

[10]  Blaise Cronin,et al.  Slow Food for thought , 2013, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[11]  Joshua A Hirsch,et al.  Medical journal peer review: process and bias. , 2015, Pain physician.

[12]  I. Cockburn,et al.  The Economics of Reproducibility in Preclinical Research , 2015, PLoS biology.

[13]  Marcia McNutt,et al.  Journals unite for reproducibility , 2014, Science.

[14]  Stephen Curry.  Peer review, preprints and the speed of science , 2015 .

[15]  Gary James Jason,et al.  The Logic of Scientific Discovery , 1988 .

[16]  Suzanne K. Linder,et al.  A Survey on Data Reproducibility in Cancer Research Provides Insights into Our Limited Ability to Translate Findings from the Laboratory to the Clinic , 2013, PloS one.

[17]  Journals unite for reproducibility , 2014, Nature.

[18]  Louise Hall,et al.  Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers , 2013, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[19]  Cliff Chiung-Yu Lin,et al.  Rise of the Rest: The Growing Impact of Non-Elite Journals , 2014, ArXiv.