Let’s make peer review scientific

@article{Rennie2016LetsMP,
  title={Let’s make peer review scientific},
  author={Drummond Rennie},
  journal={Nature},
  year={2016},
  volume={535},
  pages={31-33}
}
Thirty years on from the first congress on peer review, Drummond Rennie reflects on the improvements brought about by research into the process — and calls for more. 
Reviewing Manuscripts: A Systematic Approach.
Unlock ways to share data on peer review
TLDR
Journals, funders and scholars must work together to create an infrastructure to study peer review to ensure the future of peer review in the profession is secure.
Peer Review – the future is here
Several divergent standpoints are hosted under the umbrella of Peer Review. Authors, who wish to see the results of scrupulous work published, in the anticipation of career promotion or secure
An Investigation of Social-Behavioral Phenomena in the Peer-Review Processes of Scientific Foundations
A huge amount of the issues in the realm of scientific endeavor are decided by member of expert communities in various fields. Decisions that sanction the funding of project proposals are based on a
Peer review: A good but flawed system?
TLDR
Peer review can be rewarding, stimulating and enjoyable, opening reviewers’ minds up to new ways of thinking about their area of expertise or providing nuggets of information that they have not previously considered, but it can also be time-consuming frustrating and tedious.
The "new realities" of peer review.
  • B. Yates
  • Psychology
    Journal of neurophysiology
  • 2017
This editorial outlines the procedures used by Journal of Neurophysiology during the peer review of articles, and the increasing challenges in making rapid and fair editorial decisions on
Scholarly publishing depends on peer reviewers
The peer-review crisis is posing a risk to the scholarly peer-reviewed journal system. Journals have to ask many potential peer reviewers to obtain a minimum acceptable number of peers accepting
A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review
TLDR
There is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages, and a novel hybrid platform model is proposed that could resolve many of the socio-technical issues associated with peer review, and potentially disrupt the entire scholarly communication system.
A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review.
TLDR
There is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages, and a novel hybrid platform model is proposed that could resolve many of the socio-technical issues associated with peer review, and potentially disrupt the entire scholarly communication system.
Improving Scientific Judgments in Law and Government: A Field Experiment of Patent Peer Review
Many have advocated for the expansion of peer review to improve scientific judgments in law and public policy. One such test case is the patent examination process, with numerous commentators arguing
...
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 20 REFERENCES
Journal peer review.
Journal peer review is a remote and mysterious business for many research investigators. Four paradigms seem to capture much current opinion about peer review of scientific works submitted for jour...
Is open peer review the fairest system? Yes
  • T. Groves
  • Art
    BMJ : British Medical Journal
  • 2010
TLDR
It is argued that telling authors who has reviewed their paper has helped to make the process fairer, but Karim Khan is concerned that it stops reviewers from being completely frank.
The need for a research agenda.
Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping
TLDR
The research suggests that evaluative strategies that increase the mean quality of published science may also increase the risk of rejecting unconventional or outstanding work, and raises concerns regarding whether peer review is ill-suited to recognize and gestate the most impactful ideas and research.
Data exchange standards to support and acknowledge peer‐review activity
TLDR
A Working Group on Peer Review Service, facilitated by CASRAI, was created to develop a data model and citation standard for peer‐review activity that can be used to support both existing and new review models.
Guarding the guardians: a conference on editorial peer review.
TLDR
The system has improved and expanded to include many thousands of journals and an efficient apparatus for indexing and retrieving their contents, yet inquiries have so far failed to deal adequately with its most crucial part, peer review.
Publication bias in editorial decision making.
TLDR
Whether submitted manuscripts that report results of controlled trials are more likely to be published if they report positive results and whether publication bias occurs once manuscripts have been submitted to a medical journal is assessed.
Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators.
TLDR
Masking reviewers to author identity as commonly practiced does not improve quality of reviews, and the inability to mask reviewers to the identity of well-known authors may have contributed to the lack of effect.
Registering clinical trials.
TLDR
All stakeholders-investigators, research organizations and institutions, journal editors, lawmakers, consumers, and others-must act now, together and in their own domains, to ensure comprehensive registration of clinical trials.
Reporting randomized controlled trials. An experiment and a call for responses from readers.
TLDR
It is found that when the treatment allocation was inadequately concealed from study participants and investigators, when the effect of a therapy was thwarted if allocation of patients is not random.
...
...