Display options
Cite
Ferreira C, Bastille-Rousseau G, Bennett AM, et al. The evolution of peer review as a basis for scientific publication: directional selection towards a robust discipline?. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2015;91(3):597-610doi: 10.1111/brv.12185.
Ferreira, C., Bastille-Rousseau, G., Bennett, A. M., Ellington, E. H., Terwissen, C., Austin, C., Borlestean, A., Boudreau, M. R., Chan, K., Forsythe, A., Hossie, T. J., Landolt, K., Longhi, J., Otis, J. A., Peers, M. J., Rae, J., Seguin, J., Watt, C., Wehtje, M., & Murray, D. L. (2016). The evolution of peer review as a basis for scientific publication: directional selection towards a robust discipline?. Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 91(3), 597-610. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12185
Ferreira, Catarina, et al. "The evolution of peer review as a basis for scientific publication: directional selection towards a robust discipline?." Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society vol. 91,3 (2016): 597-610. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12185
Ferreira C, Bastille-Rousseau G, Bennett AM, Ellington EH, Terwissen C, Austin C, Borlestean A, Boudreau MR, Chan K, Forsythe A, Hossie TJ, Landolt K, Longhi J, Otis JA, Peers MJ, Rae J, Seguin J, Watt C, Wehtje M, Murray DL. The evolution of peer review as a basis for scientific publication: directional selection towards a robust discipline?. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2016 Aug;91(3):597-610. doi: 10.1111/brv.12185. Epub 2015 Apr 10. PMID: 25865035.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2016 Aug;91(3):597-610. doi: 10.1111/brv.12185. Epub 2015 Apr 10.

The evolution of peer review as a basis for scientific publication: directional selection towards a robust discipline?.

Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society

Catarina Ferreira, Guillaume Bastille-Rousseau, Amanda M Bennett, E Hance Ellington, Christine Terwissen, Cayla Austin, Adrian Borlestean, Melanie R Boudreau, Kevin Chan, Adrian Forsythe, Thomas J Hossie, Kristen Landolt, Jessica Longhi, Josée-Anne Otis, Michael J L Peers, Jason Rae, Jacob Seguin, Cristen Watt, Morgan Wehtje, Dennis L Murray

Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology, Trent University, 1600 West Bank Drive, Peterborough, K9J 7B8, Ontario, Canada.
  2. CIBIO, InBIO - Research Network in Biodiversity and Evolutionary Biology, Universidade do Porto, Campus de Vairão, Rua Padre Armando Quintas, 4485-661, Vairão, Portugal.
  3. Instituto de Investigación en Recursos Cinegéticos (IREC-CSIC-UCLM-JCCM), Ronda de Toledo, s/n, 13071, Ciudad Real, Spain.

PMID: 25865035 DOI: 10.1111/brv.12185

Abstract

Peer review is pivotal to science and academia, as it represents a widely accepted strategy for ensuring quality control in scientific research. Yet, the peer-review system is poorly adapted to recent changes in the discipline and current societal needs. We provide historical context for the cultural lag that governs peer review that has eventually led to the system's current structural weaknesses (voluntary review, unstandardized review criteria, decentralized process). We argue that some current attempts to upgrade or otherwise modify the peer-review system are merely sticking-plaster solutions to these fundamental flaws, and therefore are unlikely to resolve them in the long term. We claim that for peer review to be relevant, effective, and contemporary with today's publishing demands across scientific disciplines, its main components need to be redesigned. We propose directional changes that are likely to improve the quality, rigour, and timeliness of peer review, and thereby ensure that this critical process serves the community it was created for.

© 2015 Cambridge Philosophical Society.

Keywords: critique; long-term solutions; maladaptation; peer review; structural flaws

MeSH terms

Publication Types