How to Fix Peer Review - Scientific American Blog Network

"Firstly, one of the challenges is that the pool of peer reviewers is overstretched, with experienced academics overburdened and early career academics struggling to get a foot in the door. We need to find and invent new ways of identifying, verifying and inviting peer reviewers, focusing on closely matching expertise with the research being reviewed to increase uptake. Artificial intelligence could be a valuable tool in this.

In order to widen the reviewer pool and reduce the perception of bias we should encourage more diversity (including early career researchers, researchers from different regions, and women). Publishers in particular could raise awareness and investigate new ways of sourcing female peer reviewers.

When it comes to peer review, there is no one-size-fits-all and different research disciplines often prefer different models. We need to experiment with different and new models of peer review, particularly those that increase transparency.

Too often reviewers receive little training or guidance from their institutions and mentors. We need to invest in reviewer training programs to make sure that the next generation of reviewers is equipped to provide valuable feedback within recognized guidelines.

Many publishers are experimenting with peer review innovation, but we should be working towards cross-publisher solutions that improve efficiency and benefit all stakeholders. Portable peer review, where the peer review report travels with the paper to a second journal if not accepted for publication in the first, has not taken off at any scale, but could make the publishing process more efficient for all involved.

Peer review is mostly unpaid and unrecognized. There are mixed views on whether researchers should be paid for peer review (many feel this would introduce a perverse incentive to green-light a manuscript) but academics are largely united in calling for more recognition. Funders, institutions and publishers must work together to identify ways to recognize reviewers and acknowledge their hard work.

When it comes to preventing mistakes and research misconduct, we need to improve our use of technology to support and enhance the peer review process, including finding automated ways to identify inconsistencies that may are difficult for reviewers to spot."