Ten years on from the influential peer review survey of 2009, new findings show researchers have confidence in peer review, but strains on the system – including the increasing volume of research outputs and platforms to access research - are causing them to worry about quality and reliability.
The survey found that researchers do not want to replace the peer review process, as 75 percent are satisfied with it (compared to 69 percent in 2009). Researchers want to improve and extend the system. It is a question of when peer review should be used and knowing when it has been used. Over a third – 37 percent – admitted they had doubts over the quality of at least some research outputs they had encountered in the last week.
The study comes from the same teams from Sense about Science and Elsevier, as 2009, with over 3,000 respondents, randomly selected from the Scopus database of over 3 million published researchers.
Other results include: respondents want more information available alongside research papers, including an indicator to show whether someone else had tried to reproduce the research (82 percent); most researchers (76 percent) believe that data and supporting material that accompany research articles should be reviewed; two–thirds of participants feel that reviewers would benefit from clearer guidance on reviewing criteria, while many felt that recognition of reviewing work was important for maintenance of a healthy peer review system, most commonly from employers; few researchers (38 percent) agree that the public understand the concept of peer review. There is strong support (77 percent) for a clear indication that material has been reviewed; and most (70 percent) feel explaining research context, and the implications of research in lay terms would be most helpful.
Despite the trend towards using technology to evaluate evidence, few respondents (8 percent) felt the evaluation that relied on artificial intelligence would qualify as peer review.
There are four areas for urgent action: amid rising volume of research outputs and information platforms, researchers want improved signals, be able to cross-check work easily; better training, information, and more career-based recognition is raised by researchers in this and other studies. Finding a way to remove the current inconsistencies in reviewer instructions is paramount; agreement about the role of technology in peer review, e.g., using it to manage the rising volume of submissions and alleviate the burden on reviewers, without losing the benefits of human judgement? Without discussion, the use of AI may further disrupt people's ability to trust content; and ensure that research is put in context: articles include easy-to understand explanations of research; and a common language is used to communicate to both researchers and public alike what has been reviewed and the type of review done.
Researchers are invited to read the full report on Sense about Science's website: https://senseaboutscience.org/activities/peer-review-survey-2019.
In 2009, Elsevier and Sense About Science joined forces for one of the largest ever international researcher surveys on the topic of peer review. It asked researchers for their thoughts on aspects of the process. For instance, what it should do, how it was performing, and how it could be improved. The insights became an influential reference document for publishers and policy makers alike.
Brought to you by Scope e-Knowledge Center, a trusted global partner for digital content transformation solutions - Abstracting & Indexing (A&I), Knowledge Modeling (Taxonomies, Thesauri and Ontologies), and Metadata Enrichment & Entity Extraction.
