TY  - JOUR
A1  - Tennant, Jonathan P.
A1  - Dugan, Jonathan M.
A1  - Graziotin, Daniel
A1  - Jacques, Damien C.
A1  - Waldner, François
A1  - Mietchen, Daniel
A1  - Elkhatib, Yehia
A1  - Collister, Lauren B.
A1  - Pikas, Christina K.
A1  - Crick, Tom
A1  - Masuzzo, Paola
A1  - Caravaggi, Anthony
A1  - Berg, Devin R.
A1  - Niemeyer, Kyle E.
A1  - Ross-Hellauer, Tony
A1  - Mannheimer, Sara
A1  - Rigling, Lillian
A1  - Katz, Daniel S.
A1  - Tzovaras, Bastian Greshake
A1  - Pacheco-Mendoza, Josmel
A1  - Fatima, Nazeefa
A1  - Poblet, Marta
A1  - Isaakidis, Marios
A1  - Irawan, Dasapta Erwin
A1  - Renaut, Sébastien
A1  - Madan, Christopher R.
A1  - Matthias, Lisa
A1  - Kjær, Jesper Nørgaard
A1  - O'Donnell, Daniel Paul
A1  - Neylon, Cameron
A1  - Kearns, Sarah
A1  - Selvaraju, Manojkumar
A1  - Colomb, Julien
T1  - A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review [version 1; referees: 2 approved with reservations]
T2  - F1000Research
N2  - Peer review of research articles is a core part of our scholarly communication system. In spite of its importance, the status and purpose of peer review is often contested. What is its role in our modern digital research and communications infrastructure? Does it perform to the high standards with which it is generally regarded? Studies of peer review have shown that it is prone to bias and abuse in numerous dimensions, frequently unreliable, and can fail to detect even fraudulent research. With the advent of Web technologies, we are now witnessing a phase of innovation and experimentation in our approaches to peer review. These developments prompted us to examine emerging models of peer review from a range of disciplines and venues, and to ask how they might address some of the issues with our current systems of peer review. We examine the functionality of a range of social Web platforms, and compare these with the traits underlying a viable peer review system: quality control, quantified performance metrics as engagement incentives, and certification and reputation. Ideally, any new systems will demonstrate that they out-perform current models while avoiding as many of the biases of existing systems as possible. We conclude that there is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages. We also propose a novel hybrid platform model that, at least partially, resolves many of the technical and social issues associated with peer review, and can potentially disrupt the entire scholarly communication system. Success for any such development relies on reaching a critical threshold of research community engagement with both the process and the platform, and therefore cannot be achieved without a significant change of incentives in research environments.
Y1  - 2017
UR  - http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/43837
UR  - https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:hebis:30:3-438376
SN  - 2046-1402
N1  - Copyright: © 2017 Tennant JP et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
VL  - 6
IS  - Art. 1151
SP  - 1
EP  - 52
PB  - F1000 Research Ltd
CY  - London
ER  -