Motivating and Maintaining Ethics, Equity, Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Expertise in Peer Review View PDF |
Adam Craig, Christina Lee, Nithyaa Bala, and Carl Taswell
Brain Health Alliance Virtual Institute, Ladera Ranch, CA 92694 USA
Scientists who engage in science and the scientific endeavor should seek truth with conviction of morals and commitment to ethics.
While the number of publications continues to increase, the number of retractions has increased at a faster rate.
Journals publish fraudulent research papers despite claims of peer review and adherence to publishing ethics.
Nevertheless, appropriate ethical peer review will remain a gatekeeper when selecting research manuscripts in scholarly publishing and approving research applications for grant funding.
However, this peer review must become more open, fair, transparent, equitable, and just
with new recommendations and guidelines for reproducible and accountable reviews that support and promote fair citation and citational justice.
We should engineer this new peer-review process with modern informatics technology and information science
to provide and defend better safeguards for truth and integrity,
to clarify and maintain the provenance of information and ideas,
and to rebuild and restore trust in scholarly research institutions.
Indeed, this new approach will be necessary in the current post-truth era
to counter the ease and speed with which
mis-information, dis-information, anti-information, caco-information, and mal-information
spread through the internet, web, news, and social media.
The most important question for application of new peer-review methods to these information wars
should be ‘Who does what when?’ in support of reproducible and accountable reviews.
Who refers to the authors, reviewers, editors, and publishers as participants in the review process.
What refers to disclosure of the participants' identities, the material content of author manuscripts and reviewer commentaries,
and other communications between authors and reviewers.
When refers to tracking the sequential points in time for which disclosure of whose identity, which content, and
which communication at which step of the peer-review process for which audience of readers and reviewers.
We believe that quality peer review, and peer review of peer review,
must be motivated and maintained by elevating their status and prestige to an art and a science.
Both peer review itself and peer review analyses of peer reviews should be incentivised by publishing peer reviews
as citable references separately from the research report reviewed while crossreferenced and crosslinked to the report reviewed.
Open peer review, reproducibility, accountability,
research integrity, citational justice,
peer review of peer review.