The Publishing Research Consortium (PRC) has published a new study titled 'Peer Review in Scholarly Journals - perspective of the scholarly community'. According to the study, most researchers are not in favour of changing the current system of peer review for journal articles, as it is believed to help improve scientific communications and increase the overall quality of published papers. Alternatives such as 'open peer review' (where papers are available for public comment prior to publication) were not popular in the new study, which covered over 3,000 senior authors, reviewers and editors from around the world. However, some were interested in post-publication review, where a published paper is opened up for public comment, as a useful supplement to, but not a replacement for, traditional peer review.
Researchers did, however, prefer double-blind review (where both reviewers and authors are unaware of each other's identity) to the currently prevalent single-blind system (where only the reviewer is anonymous). Double-blind review is seen as a way to improve both objectivity and fairness. A majority of reviewers and editors also said it would be desirable to be able to review authors' data as part of peer review.
While the majority of respondents saw peer review as an effective filter for research, some did not think it was effective at detecting plagiarism, fraud or misconduct. The report, by Mark Ware Consulting, also underscored that the most productive reviewers are currently overworked - an area that may need further monitoring and analysis.
The Publishing Research Consortium is a group of associations and publishers, which supports global research into scholarly communication in order to enable evidence-based discussion. The Consortium seeks to promote an understanding of the role of publishing and its impact on research and teaching.
More News in this Theme
