Innovative Strategies for Peer Review.
Bias
Education
Open Access Publishing
Peer Review
Peer Reviewer
Publications
Journal
Journal of Korean medical science
ISSN: 1598-6357
Titre abrégé: J Korean Med Sci
Pays: Korea (South)
ID NLM: 8703518
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 May 2020
25 May 2020
Historique:
received:
29
08
2019
accepted:
16
03
2020
entrez:
26
5
2020
pubmed:
26
5
2020
medline:
28
5
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Peer review is a crucial part of research and publishing. However, it remains imperfect and suffers from bias, lack of transparency, and professional jealousy. It is also overburdened by an increasing quantity of complex papers against the stagnant pool of reviewers, causing delays in peer review. Additionally, many medical, nursing, and healthcare educators, peer reviewers, and authors may not be completely familiar with the current changes in peer review. Moreover, reviewer education and training have unfortunately remained lacking. This is especially crucial since current initiatives to improve the review process are now influenced by factors other than academic needs. Thus, increasing attention has recently focused on ways of streamlining the peer review process and implementing alternative peer-review methods using new technologies and open access models. This article aims to give an overview of the innovative strategies for peer review and to consider perspectives that may be helpful in introducing changes to peer review. Critical assessments of peer review innovations and incentives based on past and present experiences are indispensable. A theoretical appraisal must be balanced by a realistic appraisal of the ethical roles of all stakeholders in enhancing the peer review process. As the peer review system is far from being perfect, identifying and developing core competencies among reviewers, continuing education of researchers, reviewer education and training, and professional engagement of the scientific community in various disciplines may help bridge gaps in an imperfect but indispensable peer review system.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32449322
pii: 35.e138
doi: 10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e138
pmc: PMC7246191
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e138Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The author has no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.
Références
Scientometrics. 2019;118(1):339-373
pubmed: 30930504
PLoS One. 2017 Dec 13;12(12):e0189311
pubmed: 29236721
Nurs Open. 2016 Mar 16;3(4):193-202
pubmed: 27708830
J Korean Med Sci. 2015 Jun;30(6):832
pubmed: 26028940
BMJ Open. 2015 Sep 29;5(9):e008707
pubmed: 26423855
BMC Med. 2014 Sep 26;12:179
pubmed: 25270270
Heart Lung Circ. 2019 Aug;28(8):1148-1153
pubmed: 31230792
Croat Med J. 2014 Feb;55(1):61-72
pubmed: 24577829
PLoS One. 2015 Aug 12;10(8):e0132557
pubmed: 26267491
J Korean Med Sci. 2015 Apr;30(4):360-4
pubmed: 25829801
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019 Feb 27;4:4
pubmed: 30858990
Sci Eng Ethics. 2018 Feb;24(1):275-285
pubmed: 28155093
J Korean Med Sci. 2014 Nov;29(11):1450-2
pubmed: 25408573
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2018 Sep 20;3:8
pubmed: 30250752
Front Neurosci. 2015 May 27;9:169
pubmed: 26074753
F1000Res. 2018 Jun 29;7:969
pubmed: 30135731
J Korean Med Sci. 2018 Oct 18;33(46):e287
pubmed: 30416407
F1000Res. 2017 Jul 20;6:1151
pubmed: 29188015
F1000Res. 2017 Apr 27;6:588
pubmed: 28580134
Nature. 2013 Feb 14;494(7436):161
pubmed: 23407520
Rheumatol Int. 2011 Nov;31(11):1409-17
pubmed: 21800117
J Korean Med Sci. 2018 Dec 26;34(2):e6
pubmed: 30636943