Topic description
Peer review is the process by which the scholarly community vets research. Traditional peer review relies on expert anonymous reviewers to assess and critique an author’s work. Blind (anonymous) review is supposed to make the evaluation process fairer and more impartial, but recent research studies show bias and a lack of diversity in peer review. In response, some publishers and journals have begun experimenting with open review. Open review can take many forms, including named review and crowd-sourced review. With named review, the names of the peer reviewers and their reports are published online alongside the scholarship in question, making them available for anyone to read. With a crowd-sourced review, a draft of the article or book is available online for public comment before publication, which allows feedback from a greater variety of individuals, including people who may never have been approached to serve as a peer reviewer. Post-publication peer review allows for more immediate feedback on a publication through commenting mechanisms or even more formal review systems, which may be open for comment or solicited. These forms also partially address a labor inequity for peer reviewers, who are often uncompensated for their work. This question is addressed further in the Labor section of the Research Agenda.
Moreover, it is essential to ensure that papers are not reviewed exclusively by experts from the same ‘school of thought.’ As explained in the World Association of Medical Editors policy, Conflict of Interest in Peer-Reviewed Medical Journals, “Participants… may have strong beliefs (“intellectual passion”) that commit them to a particular explanation, method, or idea. They may, as a result, be biased … in reviewing the work of others that is in favor or at odds with their beliefs.” Seeking reviews from various voices to avoid the risk of working inside an echo chamber is imperative.
Research questions
- What steps can library publishers take to reduce bias in peer review?
- How can library publishers ensure diversity in peer review?
- How can library publishers influence other (often more prominent) publishers to adopt more inclusive peer review practices?
- How can publishers assess new forms of peer review to better understand whether they may replicate or exacerbate existing inequities of current practices?
- How do library publishers see the purpose of peer review, and how is that different or the same as, say, university presses?
Relevant resources
Bancroft, S. F., Ryoo, K., & Miles, M. (2022). Promoting equity in the peer review process of journal publication. Science Education, 106, 1232–1248. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21733
COPE. Bias in Peer Review (October 2021). https://publicationethics.org/resources/forum-discussions/bias-peer-review
Ford, E. (2013). Defining and characterizing open peer review: A review of the literature. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 44(4), 311–326. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.44-4-001
Inefuku, H. (2021). Relegated to the Margins: Faculty of Color, the Scholarly Record, and the Necessity of Antiracist Library Disruptions. Knowledge Justice: Disrupting Library and Information Studies through Critical Race Theory https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11969.003.0014
Murray, D. et. al. (2019) Author-Reviewer Homophily in Peer Review. BioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/400515
Ortega, J. L. (2017). Are peer-review activities related to reviewer bibliometric performance? A scientometric analysis of Publons. Scientometrics, 112, 947–962. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2399-6
Ross-Hellauer, T. (2017). What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research, 6, 588. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.1
Seeber, M., & Bacchelli, A. (2017). Does single blind peer review hinder newcomers? Scientometrics, 113, 567–585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2264-7
Snell, R. R. (2015). Menage a quoi? Optimal number of peer reviewers. PLoS ONE, 10(4), e0120838. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120838