Peer review: past, present, and future

There is no easy fix to peer review but paying referees and regulating the number of submissions might help

The exponential increase in the number of submissions, further accelerated by generative AI, and the decline in the availability of experts are burdening the peer review process. This has led to high unethical desk rejection rates, a growing appeal for the publication of unreviewed preprints, and a worrying proliferation of predatory journals. The idea of monetarily compensating peer reviewers has been around for many years; maybe, it is time to take it seriously as one way to save the peer review process. Here, I argue that paying reviewers, when done in a fair and transparent way, is a viable solution. Like the case of professional language editors, part-time or full-time professional reviewers, managed by universities or for-profit companies, can be an integral part of modern peer review. Being a professional reviewer could be financially attractive to retired senior researchers and to researchers who enjoy evaluating papers but are not motivated to do so for free. Moreover, not all produced research needs to go through peer review, and thus persuading researchers to limit submissions to their most novel and useful research could also help bring submission volumes to manageable levels. Overall, this paper reckons that the problem is not the peer review process per se but rather its function within an academic ecosystem dominated by an unhealthy culture of 'publish or perish'. Instead of reforming the peer review process, academia has to look for better science dissemination schemes that promote collaboration over competition, engagement over judgement, and research quality and sustainability over quantity.

Gender and Geographic Origin as Determinants of Manuscript Publication Outcomes: JBMR® Bibliometric Analysis from 2017 to 2019

The Journal of Bone and Mineral Research (JBMR®), the flagship journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR), enjoys a premiere position in its field and has a global reach. The journal uses a single-blind peer-review process whereby three editors are typically involved in assessing each submission for publication, in addition to external reviewers. Although emphasizing fairness, rigor, and transparency, this process is not immune to the influence of unconscious biases. The gender and geographic diversity of JBMR® authors, editors, and reviewers has increased over the last three decades, but whether such diversity has affected peer-review outcomes is unknown. We analyzed manuscript acceptance rates based on the gender and geographic origin of authors, reviewers, and Associate Editors. The analysis included 1662 original research articles submitted to JBMR® from September 2017 through December 2019. Gender was assigned using probabilities from an online tool and manually validated through internet searches. Predictor variables of manuscript outcome were determined with multivariate logistic regression analysis. The acceptance rate was highest when the first and last authors were of different genders, and lowest when both authors were men. Reviewer gender did not influence the outcome regardless of the genders of the first and last authors. Associate Editors from all geographical regions tended to select reviewers from their same region. The acceptance rate was highest when the Associate Editor was from Europe. Manuscripts with authors from North America and Australia/New Zealand had greater overall odds of acceptance than those from Europe and Asia. Manuscripts reviewed only by Editorial Board (EB) members had a lower acceptance rate than those refereed by non-EB reviewers or a mix of EB and non-EB reviewers. Overall, the geographical origin of authors, reviewers, and editors, as well as reviewers' EB membership may influence manuscript decisions. Yet, the JBMR® peer-review process remains largely free from gender bias. © 2022 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review

Various types of bias and confounding have been described in the biomedical literature that can affect a study before, during, or after the intervention has been delivered. The peer review process can also introduce bias. A compelling ethical and moral rationale necessitates improving the peer review process. A double-blind peer review system is supported on equipoise and fair-play principles. Triple- and quadruple-blind systems have also been described but are not commonly used. The open peer review system introduces "Skin in the Game" heuristic principles for both authors and reviewers and has a small favorable effect on the quality of published reports. In this exposition, we present, on the basis of a comprehensive literature search of PubMed from its inception until October 20, 2017, various possible mechanisms by which the peer review process can distort research results, and we discuss the evidence supporting different strategies that may mitigate this bias. It is time to improve the quality, transparency, and accountability of the peer review system.

The Impact of the Photocopier on Peer Review and Nursing Theory

OVERVIEW

Two influential publications in nursing, Nursing Research and Perspectives on Nursing Theory, are used to illustrate how a specific technology change-the invention and marketing of the photocopier-influenced knowledge dissemination and information utilization in nursing, perhaps in ways not immediately apparent.

METHODS

Content analysis and historical comparison, using editorials from Nursing Research, historical reports on technology development, and personal reflections on the genesis of Perspectives on Nursing Theory are used to create an argument for the role of technology in peer review, information utilization, and knowledge development in nursing.

CONCLUSION

Multiple forces influence nursing science. Scholars should be alert to data inputs from many sources and respond accordingly.

Efficacy of Double-Blind Peer Review in an Imaging Subspecialty Journal

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Many scientific journals use double-blind peer review to minimize potential reviewer bias concerning publication recommendations. However, because neuroradiology is a relatively small subspecialty, this process may be limited by prior knowledge of the authors' work or associated institutions. We sought to investigate the efficacy of reviewer blinding and determine the impact that unblinding may have on manuscript acceptance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For manuscripts submitted to the American Journal of Neuroradiology (AJNR) from January through June 2015, reviewers completed a brief anonymous questionnaire after submitting their evaluations, assessing whether they were familiar with the research or had knowledge of the authors or institutions from which the work originated.

RESULTS

The response rate for 1079 questionnaires was 98.8%; 12.9% of reviewers knew or suspected that they knew authors, and 15.3% knew or suspected that they knew the associated institutions. Reviewers correctly identified the authors in 90.3% of cases and correctly stated the institutions in 86.8% of cases. Unblinding resulted from self-citation in 34.1% for both authorship and institutions. The acceptance rate when reviewers knew or suspected that they knew the authors was 57/137 (41.6%) and 262/929 (28.2%) when reviewers did not. The acceptance rate when reviewers knew or suspected that they knew the institutions was 60/163 (36.8%) and 259/903 (28.7%) when they did not. The Fisher exact test showed that author (P < .038) and institution (P < .039) familiarity was associated with greater manuscript acceptance.

CONCLUSIONS

While the AJNR process of double-blind peer review minimizes reviewer bias, perceived knowledge of the author and institution is associated with a higher rate of manuscript acceptance.

The evolution of peer review as a basis for scientific publication: directional selection towards a robust discipline?

Peer review is pivotal to science and academia, as it represents a widely accepted strategy for ensuring quality control in scientific research. Yet, the peer-review system is poorly adapted to recent changes in the discipline and current societal needs. We provide historical context for the cultural lag that governs peer review that has eventually led to the system's current structural weaknesses (voluntary review, unstandardized review criteria, decentralized process). We argue that some current attempts to upgrade or otherwise modify the peer-review system are merely sticking-plaster solutions to these fundamental flaws, and therefore are unlikely to resolve them in the long term. We claim that for peer review to be relevant, effective, and contemporary with today's publishing demands across scientific disciplines, its main components need to be redesigned. We propose directional changes that are likely to improve the quality, rigour, and timeliness of peer review, and thereby ensure that this critical process serves the community it was created for.