001016860 001__ 1016860
001016860 005__ 20241120212348.0
001016860 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.12688/f1000research.12037.3
001016860 0247_ $$2datacite_doi$$a10.34734/FZJ-2023-03844
001016860 037__ $$aFZJ-2023-03844
001016860 082__ $$a610
001016860 1001_ $$00000-0001-7794-0218$$aTennant, Jonathan P.$$b0
001016860 245__ $$aA multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review
001016860 260__ $$aLondon$$bF1000 Research Ltd$$c2017
001016860 3367_ $$2DRIVER$$aarticle
001016860 3367_ $$2DataCite$$aOutput Types/Journal article
001016860 3367_ $$0PUB:(DE-HGF)16$$2PUB:(DE-HGF)$$aJournal Article$$bjournal$$mjournal$$s1732084895_15938
001016860 3367_ $$2BibTeX$$aARTICLE
001016860 3367_ $$2ORCID$$aJOURNAL_ARTICLE
001016860 3367_ $$00$$2EndNote$$aJournal Article
001016860 520__ $$aPeer review of research articles is a core part of our scholarly communication system. In spite of its importance, the status and purpose of peer review is often contested. What is its role in our modern digital research and communications infrastructure? Does it perform to the high standards with which it is generally regarded? Studies of peer review have shown that it is prone to bias and abuse in numerous dimensions, frequently unreliable, and can fail to detect even fraudulent research. With the advent of web technologies, we are now witnessing a phase of innovation and experimentation in our approaches to peer review. These developments prompted us to examine emerging models of peer review from a range of disciplines and venues, and to ask how they might address some of the issues with our current systems of peer review. We examine the functionality of a range of social Web platforms, and compare these with the traits underlying a viable peer review system: quality control, quantified performance metrics as engagement incentives, and certification and reputation. Ideally, any new systems will demonstrate that they out-perform and reduce the biases of existing models as much as possible. We conclude that there is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages. We also propose a novel hybrid platform model that could, at least partially, resolve many of the socio-technical issues associated with peer review, and potentially disrupt the entire scholarly communication system. Success for any such development relies on reaching a critical threshold of research community engagement with both the process and the platform, and therefore cannot be achieved without a significant change of incentives in research environments.
001016860 588__ $$aDataset connected to CrossRef, Journals: juser.fz-juelich.de
001016860 7001_ $$00000-0001-8525-6221$$aDugan, Jonathan M.$$b1
001016860 7001_ $$aGraziotin, Daniel$$b2
001016860 7001_ $$00000-0002-9069-4143$$aJacques, Damien C.$$b3
001016860 7001_ $$00000-0002-5599-7456$$aWaldner, François$$b4
001016860 7001_ $$00000-0001-9488-1870$$aMietchen, Daniel$$b5
001016860 7001_ $$00000-0003-4639-436X$$aElkhatib, Yehia$$b6
001016860 7001_ $$00000-0001-5767-8486$$aB. Collister, Lauren$$b7
001016860 7001_ $$00000-0002-4455-8036$$aPikas, Christina K.$$b8
001016860 7001_ $$00000-0001-5196-9389$$aCrick, Tom$$b9
001016860 7001_ $$00000-0003-3699-1195$$aMasuzzo, Paola$$b10
001016860 7001_ $$00000-0002-1763-8970$$aCaravaggi, Anthony$$b11
001016860 7001_ $$00000-0002-1193-3848$$aBerg, Devin R.$$b12
001016860 7001_ $$00000-0003-4425-7097$$aNiemeyer, Kyle E.$$b13
001016860 7001_ $$00000-0003-4470-7027$$aRoss-Hellauer, Tony$$b14
001016860 7001_ $$00000-0002-1433-6782$$aMannheimer, Sara$$b15
001016860 7001_ $$00000-0002-9178-0422$$aRigling, Lillian$$b16
001016860 7001_ $$00000-0001-5934-7525$$aKatz, Daniel S.$$b17
001016860 7001_ $$00000-0002-9925-9623$$aGreshake Tzovaras, Bastian$$b18
001016860 7001_ $$00000-0002-2251-8092$$aPacheco-Mendoza, Josmel$$b19
001016860 7001_ $$00000-0001-7791-4984$$aFatima, Nazeefa$$b20
001016860 7001_ $$00000-0002-0026-989X$$aPoblet, Marta$$b21
001016860 7001_ $$00000-0001-8498-1309$$aIsaakidis, Marios$$b22
001016860 7001_ $$00000-0002-1526-0863$$aIrawan, Dasapta Erwin$$b23
001016860 7001_ $$00000-0002-8111-5082$$aRenaut, Sébastien$$b24
001016860 7001_ $$00000-0003-3228-6501$$aMadan, Christopher R.$$b25
001016860 7001_ $$00000-0002-2612-2132$$aMatthias, Lisa$$b26
001016860 7001_ $$00000-0001-9183-9861$$aNørgaard Kjær, Jesper$$b27
001016860 7001_ $$00000-0002-0127-4893$$aO'Donnell, Daniel Paul$$b28
001016860 7001_ $$00000-0002-0068-716X$$aNeylon, Cameron$$b29
001016860 7001_ $$00000-0001-5640-909X$$aKearns, Sarah$$b30
001016860 7001_ $$00000-0001-6439-5652$$aSelvaraju, Manojkumar$$b31
001016860 7001_ $$00000-0002-3127-5520$$aColomb, Julien$$b32
001016860 773__ $$0PERI:(DE-600)2699932-8$$a10.12688/f1000research.12037.3$$gVol. 6, p. 1151 -$$p1151 -$$tF1000Research$$v6$$x2046-1402$$y2017
001016860 8564_ $$uhttps://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1016860/files/fa6fe4bc-6874-4566-9e9a-2ca3aa0c6c21_12037_-_jon_tennant_v3.pdf$$yOpenAccess
001016860 909CO $$ooai:juser.fz-juelich.de:1016860$$qdnbdelivery
001016860 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0200$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bSCOPUS$$d2023-08-22
001016860 915__ $$0LIC:(DE-HGF)CCBY4$$2HGFVOC$$aCreative Commons Attribution CC BY 4.0
001016860 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0501$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bDOAJ Seal$$d2020-10-14T09:38:47Z
001016860 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0500$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bDOAJ$$d2020-10-14T09:38:47Z
001016860 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0510$$2StatID$$aOpenAccess
001016860 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0030$$2StatID$$aPeer Review$$bDOAJ : Open peer review$$d2020-10-14T09:38:47Z
001016860 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0561$$2StatID$$aArticle Processing Charges$$d2023-08-22
001016860 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0300$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bMedline$$d2023-08-22
001016860 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)10000$$2StatID$$aHosted Content
001016860 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0320$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bPubMed Central$$d2023-08-22
001016860 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0700$$2StatID$$aFees$$d2023-08-22
001016860 920__ $$lno
001016860 9801_ $$aOPENSCIENCE
001016860 980__ $$ajournal
001016860 980__ $$aI:(DE-Juel1)ZB-20090406