Unlock ways to share data on peer review

  title={Unlock ways to share data on peer review},
  author={F. Squazzoni and P. Ahrweiler and Tiago Barros and F. Bianchi and Aliaksandr Birukou and H. Blom and Giangiacomo Bravo and S. Cowley and V. Dignum and Pierpaolo Dondio and F. Grimaldo and L. Haire and Jason Hoyt and Phil Hurst and R. Lammey and C. MacCallum and A. Maru{\vs}i{\'c} and B. Mehmani and H. Murray and D. Nicholas and G. Pedrazzi and I. Puebla and Peter W. Rodgers and T. Ross-Hellauer and M. Seeber and K. Shankar and Joris van Rossum and Michael Willis},
Journals, funders and scholars must work together to create an infrastructure to study peer review. Journals, funders and scholars must work together to create an infrastructure to study peer review. 

Topics from this paper

The limitations to our understanding of peer review
This work analyses peer review to assess where the major gaps in theoretical and empirical understanding of it lie, and identifies core themes including editorial responsibility, the subjectivity and bias of reviewers, the function and quality of peer review, and the social and epistemic implications ofpeer review. Expand
The Platform for Responsible Editorial Policies: An initiative to foster editorial transparency in scholarly publishing
The Platform for Responsible Editorial Policies, launched by the Centre for Science for Science and Technology Studies in Leiden, contributes to openly shared editorial procedures for scholarly journals and ultimately aims to facilitate responsible journal management. Expand
Peer review and gender bias: A study on 145 scholarly journals
Findings suggest that peer review and editorial processes do not penalize manuscripts by women, and increasing gender diversity in editorial teams and referee pools could help journals inform potential authors about their attention to these factors and so stimulate participation by women. Expand
Measuring the Developmental Function of Peer Review: A Multi-Dimensional, Cross-Disciplinary Analysis of Peer Review Reports from 740 Academic Journals
Reviewers do not only help to screen manuscripts for publication in academic journals; they also serve to increase the rigor and value of manuscripts by constructive feedback. However, measuring thisExpand
A Disciplinary View of Changes in Publications' Reference Lists After Peer Review
It is suggested that manuscripts in the natural and medical sciences undergo more extensive reframing of the literature used to situate and interpret the results of studies than the social and agricultural sciences, which are further embedded in the existing literature through peer review. Expand
Large-scale language analysis of peer review reports
It was found that reviewer recommendation had the biggest impact on the linguistic characteristics of reports, and that area of research, type of peer review and reviewer gender had little or no impact. Expand
Revealing Reviewers’ Identities as Part of Open Peer Review and Analysis of the Review Reports
This research article is aimed at comparing review reports, in which the identity of the reviewers is revealed to the authors of the papers, with those where the reviewers decided to remainExpand
On the Privacy-Utility Tradeoff in Peer-Review Data Analysis
This paper proposes a framework for privacy-preserving release of certain conference peer-review data -- distributions of ratings, miscalibration, and subjectivity -- with an emphasis on the accuracy (or utility) of the released data. Expand
Computational Models That Matter During a Global Pandemic Outbreak: A Call to Action
Responding to the pandemic is a stress test of the collaborative capacity and the social/economic value of research, and the scientific community is urged to improve the transparency, access, and rigour of their models. Expand


Let’s make peer review scientific
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.
Publish peer reviews
Jessica K. Polka and colleagues call on journals to sign a pledge to make reviewers’ anonymous comments part of the official scientific record.Jessica K. Polka and colleagues call on journals to signExpand
Fragments of peer review: A quantitative analysis of the literature (1969-2015)
It is found that the number of publications in this field doubled from 2005, and research on peer review between 1969 and 2015 is fragmented, with the largest group of co-authors including only 2.1% of the whole community. Expand
The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals
It is found that publishing reports did not significantly compromise referees’ willingness to review, recommendations, or turn-around times, and suggest that open peer review does not compromise the process, at least when referees are able to protect their anonymity. Expand
The sociology of scientific validity: How professional networks shape judgement in peer review
Professional connections between the creators and evaluators of scientific work are ubiquitous, and the possibility of bias ever-present. Although connections have been shown to bias predictions ofExpand
Author‐suggested reviewers: gender differences and influences on the peer review process at an ecology journal
Most strikingly, author-preferred reviewers rated papers more positively than did editor-selected reviewers, and papers reviewed by author- Preference reviewers were much more likely to be invited for revision than were papers review by editor- selected reviewers. Expand
Publons' Global State Of Peer Review 2018
Publishing: Journals could share peer-review data