Offering researchers credit for performing peer review seems, on the surface, like a good idea. But implementing such a scheme raises some problematic questions.
When sexist comments make it into a technical review of a research article, journal editors and publishers are wise to take a moment and think about processes for finding, responding to, and eradicating this behavior.
Publishers often slap labels on activities that are complex, expensive, and high-value. Worse, we often accept people calling these activities “value-add” when they are core functions of how scientific information shared.
Shorter deadlines, email reminders, and cash incentives can speed up the peer review process and minimize unintended effects, a recent study suggests. Can it work for other disciplines?
Narrowing the definition of peer review to only validation standards, we may be exposing peer review in its least flattering light, while ignoring the more reliable and powerful ways in which peer review serves science.
There’s much more to making “post-publication peer-review” work, much less a valid form of peer-review. Rebranding comments and letters isn’t sufficient. Maybe it’s time to recognize over-reach.
Do the benefits of peer review outweigh the work involved? How does post-publication review stack up in comparison?