|
== Scholarly ==
{{excerpt|Scholarly peer review}}
Scholarly peer review has been subject to several criticisms, and various proposals for reforming the system have been suggested over the years<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Thomson |first=Tj |last2=Irvine |first2=Lesley |last3=Thomas |first3=Glen |date=2024-05-16 |title=Learning the art of Scholarly Peer-Review: Insights from the Communication Discipline |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1329878X241254568 |journal=Media International Australia |language=en |doi=10.1177/1329878X241254568 |issn=1329-878X}}</ref>. Many studies have emphasized the problems inherent to the process of peer review.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Squazzoni|first1=Flaminio|last2=Brezis|first2=Elise|last3=Marušić|first3=Ana|date=2017-10-01|title=Scientometrics of peer review|url=https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2518-4|journal=Scientometrics|language=en|volume=113|issue=1|pages=501–502|doi=10.1007/s11192-017-2518-4|issn=1588-2861|pmc=5629222|pmid=29056787}}</ref> Moreover, Ragone et al.,<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Ragone|first1=Azzurra|last2=Mirylenka|first2=Katsiaryna|last3=Casati|first3=Fabio|last4=Marchese|first4=Maurizio|date=2013-11-01|title=On peer review in computer science: analysis of its effectiveness and suggestions for improvement|url=https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1002-z|journal=Scientometrics|volume=97|issue=2|pages=317–356|doi=10.1007/s11192-013-1002-z|s2cid=16803499|issn=0138-9130}}</ref> have shown that there is a low correlation between peer review outcomes and the future impact measured by citations. [[Elise Brezis|Brezis]] and Birukou also show that the peer review process is not working properly. They underline that the ratings are not robust, e.g., changing reviewers can have a dramatic impact on the review results. Two main elements affect the bias in the peer process:<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal|last1=Brezis|first1=Elise S.|last2=Birukou|first2=Aliaksandr|date=2020-04-01|title=Arbitrariness in the peer review process|journal=Scientometrics|language=en|volume=123|issue=1|pages=393–411|doi=10.1007/s11192-020-03348-1|s2cid=211017926|issn=1588-2861|doi-access=free}} [[File:CC-BY icon.svg|50px]] Text was copied from this source, which is available under a [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License].</ref>
* The first element is that referees display [[homophily]] in their taste and perception of innovative ideas. So reviewers who are developing conventional ideas will tend to give low grades to innovative projects, while reviewers who have developed innovative ideas tend, by homophily, to give higher grades to innovative projects.
* The second element leading to a high variance in the peer review process is that reviewers are not investing the same amount of time to analyze the projects (or equivalently are not with the same abilities). Brezis and Biruku<ref name=":3" /> show that this heterogeneity among referees will lead to seriously affect the whole peer review process, and will lead to main arbitrariness in the results of the process.<ref name=":3"/>
The peer process is also in use for projects acceptance. (For projects, the acceptance rates are small and are between 1% and 20%, with an average of 10%. In the European H2020 calls, the acceptance rate is 1.8%.) Peer review is more problematic when choosing the projects to be funded since innovative projects are not highly ranked in the existing peer-review process. The peer-review process leads to conformity, i.e., the selection of less controversial projects and papers. This may even influence the type of proposals scholars will propose, since scholars need to find financing for their research as discussed by Martin, 1997:<ref>{{Cite web|last=Martin|first=B.|title=Chapter 5: Peer review as scholarly conformity|url=https://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/ss/ss5.html|access-date=|website=www.bmartin.cc}}</ref> "A common informal view is that it is easier to obtain funds for conventional projects. Those who are eager to get funding are not likely to propose radical or unorthodox projects. Since you don't know who the referees are going to be, it is best to assume that they are middle-of-the-road. Therefore, the middle-of-the-road application is safer".<ref name=":3" />
Other attempts to reform the peer review process originate among others from the fields of [[metascience]] and [[journalology]]. Reformers seek to increase the reliability and efficiency of the peer review process and to provide it with a scientific foundation.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Rennie |first1=Drummond |title=Let's make peer review scientific |journal=Nature |date=7 July 2016 |volume=535 |issue=7610 |pages=31–33 |doi=10.1038/535031a |pmid=27383970 |bibcode=2016Natur.535...31R |s2cid=4408375 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Slavov|first=Nikolai|date=2015-11-11|title=Making the most of peer review|journal=eLife|volume=4|page=e12708|doi=10.7554/eLife.12708|pmid=26559758|pmc=4641509|issn=2050-084X |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Couzin-Frankel |first1=Jennifer |title='Journalologists' use scientific methods to study academic publishing. Is their work improving science? |journal=Science |date=18 September 2018 |doi=10.1126/science.aav4758|doi-access=free}}</ref> Alternatives to common peer review practices have been put to the test,<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Cosgrove|first1=Andrew|last2=Cheifet|first2=Barbara|date=2018-11-27|title=Transparent peer review trial: the results|journal=Genome Biology|volume=19|issue=1|page=206|doi=10.1186/s13059-018-1584-0|issn=1474-760X|pmc=6260718|pmid=30482224 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Patterson|first1=Mark|last2=Schekman|first2=Randy|date=2018-06-26|title=A new twist on peer review|journal=eLife|volume=7|page=e36545|doi=10.7554/eLife.36545|pmid=29944117|pmc=6019064|issn=2050-084X |doi-access=free }}</ref> in particular ''[[open peer review]]'', where the comments are visible to readers, generally with the identities of the peer reviewers disclosed as well, e.g., [[Faculty of 1000|F1000]], ''[[eLife]]'', ''[[The BMJ|BMJ]]'', and [[BioMed Central]].<ref name="ross17">{{cite journal |last=Ross-Hellauer |first=Tony |title=What is open peer review? A systematic review |journal=F1000Research |volume=6 |date=2017-08-31 |issn=2046-1402 |doi=10.12688/f1000research.11369.2 |page=588|pmid=28580134 |pmc=5437951 |doi-access=free }}</ref> In the case of eLife, peer review is used not for deciding whether to publish an article, but for assessing its importance and reliability.<ref name="else22" /> Likewise, the recognition and recruitment of peer reviewers continues to be a significant issue in the field of scholarly publishing.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Dyke|first1=Gareth|date=2023 |title=Interview with Dr. Neeraj Kumar Sethiya, the newest ReviewerCredits ambassador |url=https://www.reviewercredits.com/interview-with-dr-neeraj-kumar-sethiya-the-newest-reviewercredits-ambassador/}}</ref>
==Medical==
|
