% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Tennant:1016860,
      author       = {Tennant, Jonathan P. and Dugan, Jonathan M. and Graziotin,
                      Daniel and Jacques, Damien C. and Waldner, François and
                      Mietchen, Daniel and Elkhatib, Yehia and B. Collister,
                      Lauren and Pikas, Christina K. and Crick, Tom and Masuzzo,
                      Paola and Caravaggi, Anthony and Berg, Devin R. and
                      Niemeyer, Kyle E. and Ross-Hellauer, Tony and Mannheimer,
                      Sara and Rigling, Lillian and Katz, Daniel S. and Greshake
                      Tzovaras, Bastian and Pacheco-Mendoza, Josmel and Fatima,
                      Nazeefa and Poblet, Marta and Isaakidis, Marios and Irawan,
                      Dasapta Erwin and Renaut, Sébastien and Madan, Christopher
                      R. and Matthias, Lisa and Nørgaard Kjær, Jesper and
                      O'Donnell, Daniel Paul and Neylon, Cameron and Kearns, Sarah
                      and Selvaraju, Manojkumar and Colomb, Julien},
      title        = {{A} multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future
                      innovations in peer review},
      journal      = {F1000Research},
      volume       = {6},
      issn         = {2046-1402},
      address      = {London},
      publisher    = {F1000 Research Ltd},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2023-03844},
      pages        = {1151 -},
      year         = {2017},
      abstract     = {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 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.},
      ddc          = {610},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      doi          = {10.12688/f1000research.12037.3},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1016860},
}