Post-Publication Review: Evolution of the Scientific Publishing Workflow

12+ Submit an article

Received: 15.03.2024 Published: 15.03.2024

UDC: 655.5 DOI: 10.22394/2410-132X-2024-10-3-8-21

Abstract

For a considerable period of time, peer review has been regarded as the cornerstone of academic journals and scientific communication, ensuring the high quality and reliability of published materials. However, in the early decades of the 21st century, a growing number of scholars began to challenge the traditional peer review procedure, questioning its efficacy. This study aims to provide a fresh perspective on the peer review mechanism, with the objective of enhancing the implementation of scientific communication's functionalities. The research employs historical analysis techniques and modelling methods based on Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) to compare diverse review models in terms of their influence on scientific communication. BPMN is a conventional tool employed for modelling and describing business processes. The evolution of the peer review procedure is explored, encompassing an examination of the factors contributing to current and future transformations in the publishing realm. The author refers to the crisis of the conventional peer review system and the growing prevalence of preprints, serving as exemplars of these transformations. Finally, suggestions for the implementation of the post-publication review workflow in Russia are provided.

Keywords

Agencies

Работа выполнена в рамках государственного задания Министерства науки и высшего образования Российской Федерации (тема 122040800182-0 Прогнозные исследования развития научного потенциала Российской Федерации).

How to cite

Для цитирования:

Кочетков Д.М. Постпубликационное рецензирование: развитие научно-издательского процесса // Экономика науки. 2024. Т. 10, № 3. С. 8–21. https://doi.org/10.22394/2410-132X-2024-10-3-8-21

For citation:

Kochetkov D.M. Post-Publication Review: Evolution of the Scientific Publishing Workflow // Economics of Science. 2024. Vol. 10, no. 3. P. 8–21. https://doi.org/10.22394/2410-132X-2024-10-3-8-21

Коды статьи

  • УДК 655.5
  • Тип статьи (РИНЦ) Обзорная статья (Обзорная статья)
  • SPIN-код Кочетков Д. М.: 6343-6630

How to Cite

Kochetkov D.M. Post-Publication Review: Evolution of the Scientific Publishing Workflow // Economics of Science. 2024. Vol. 10, no. 3. P. 8–21. https://doi.org/10.22394/2410-132X-2024-10-3-8-21

References

  1. Парафонова В. А. Становление научно-популярных журналов в России // Вестник Московского университета. Серия 10. Журналистика. 2011. № 6. С. 61–72. https://vestnik.journ.msu.ru/books/2011/6/stanovlenie-nauchno-populyarnykh-zhurnalov-v-rossii/
  2. Сухарев О. С. Топосы российского рецензирования // Инвестиции в России. 2020. Т. 10. С. 43–48.
  3. Тамбовцев В. Л. Рецензирование в современных научных коммуникациях // Управление наукой: теория и практика. 2021. Т. 3. № 1. С. 35–54. https://doi.org/10.19181/smtp.2021.3.1.2
  4. Тихонова Е. В., Раицкая Л. К. Рецензирование как инструмент обеспечения эффективной научной коммуникации: традиции и инновации // Научный редактор и издатель. 2021. Т. 6. № 1. С. 6–17. https://doi.org/10.24069/2542-0267-2021-1-6-17
  5. Этика научных публикаций: руководства, стандарты и блок-схемы Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Этика научных публикаций / Под ред. О. В. Кириллова, Н. Г. Попова; пер. Е. А. Балякина, А. А. Буцанец, С. П. Зернес, [и др.]. Ассоциация научных редакторов и издателей, 2023. https://rassep.ru/academy/biblioteka/116140/
  6. Aczel B., Szaszi B., Holcombe A. O. A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review // Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2021. Vol. 6. № 1. P. 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00118-2
  7. Avissar-Whiting M., Belliard F., Bertozzi S. M. [et al.] Recommendations for accelerating open preprint peer review to improve the culture of science // PLOS Biology. 2024. Vol. 22. № 2. P. e3002502.
  8. Bornmann L. Scientific peer review // Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. 2011. Vol. 45. № 1. P. 197–245. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.2011.1440450112
  9. Braben D., Dowler R. Peer review processes risk stifling creativity and limiting opportunities for gamechanging scientific discoveries // LSE Impact Blog. 2017. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2017/09/17/peer-review-processes-risk-stifling-creativity-and-limiting-opportunities-for-scientificdiscoveries/
  10. Brembs B., Drury L. The Open Access rising tide: Gates Foundation ends support to Article Processing Charges // International Science Council. 2024. https://council.science/current/blog/the-open-accessrising-tide-gates-foundation-ends-support-to-article-processing-charges/
  11. Chapelle F. H. The History and Practice of Peer Review // Groundwater. 2014. Vol. 52. № 1. P. 1–1. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwat.12139
  12. COPE. Diversity and inclusivity. 2021. https://doi.org/10.24318/RLqSoVsZ
  13. COPE. Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers (English). Committee on Publication Ethics, 2013. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9
  14. Drury L. The Normalization of Preprints. // SRELS Journal of Information Management. 2022. P. 79–85. https://doi.org/10.17821/srels/2022/v59i2/169462
  15. Fyfe A. Quality in peer review: a view through the lens of time // The Royal Society. 2019. https://royalsociety.org/blog/2019/09/quality-in-peer-review-a-view-through-the-lens-of-time/
  16. Ginsparg P. ArXiv at 20 // Nature. 2011. Vol. 476. № 7359. P. 145–147.
  17. Hess E. L. Effects of the review process // IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication. 1975. Vol. PC-18. № 3. P. 196–199. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.1975.6591188
  18. Horbach S. P. J.M., Halffman W. Journal Peer Review and Editorial Evaluation: Cautious Innovator or Sleepy Giant? // Minerva. 2020. Vol. 58. P. 139–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-019-09388-z
  19. International Science Council. The Case for Reform of Scientific Publishing. 2023. https://doi.org/10.24948/2023.14
  20. Kaltenbrunner W., Waltman L., Barnett A., Byrne J., Chin J. M., Holcombe A., Pinfield S., Vazire S., Wilsdon J. MetaRoR – a new form of scholarly publishing and peer review for STS // EASST Review. 2023. Vol. 421. https://easst.net/easst-review/easst-review-volume-421-july-2023/metaror-a-new-formof-scholarly-publishing-and-peer-review-for-sts/
  21. Karhulahti V.-M., Backe H.-J. Transparency of peer review: a semi-structured interview study with chief editors from social sciences and humanities // Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2021. Vol. 6. № 1. P. 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00116-4
  22. Keen S. Post Keynesian Theories of Crisis // The American Journal of Economics and Sociology. 2015. Vol. 74. № 2. P. 298–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12099
  23. Kochetkov D. Evolution of Peer Review in Scientific Communication // SocArXiv Papers. 2024. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/b2ra3
  24. Kovanis M., Trinquart L., Ravaud P., Porcher R. Evaluating alternative systems of peer review: A largescale agent-based modelling approach to scientific publication // Scientometrics. 2017. Vol.113. № 1. P. 651–671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2375-1
  25. Kronick D. A. Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism // JAMA. 1990. Vol. 263. № 10. P. 1321–2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2406469
  26. McCook A. Is Peer Review Broken? // The Scientist. 2006. https://www.the-scientist.com/is-peer-reviewbroken-47872
  27. Neff B. D., Olden J. D. Is Peer Review a Game of Chance? // BioScience. 2006. Vol. 56. № 4. P. 333– 340. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2006)56[333: IPRAGO]2.0.CO;2
  28. Ni R., Waltman L. To preprint or not to preprint: A global researcher survey // Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2024. Vol. 75. № 6. P. 749–766. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24880
  29. Rennie D. Editorial peer review: Its development and rationale / D. Rennie // Peer Review in Health Sciences / eds. F. Godleeand, T. Jefferson. London: BMJ Books, 1999. P. 1–13.
  30. Rühli F. J., Finnegan M., Hershkovitz I., Henneberg, M. Peer-review for the peer-review system // Human_Ontogenetics. 2009. Vol. 3. № 1. P. 3–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/huon.200900004
  31. Smart P. The evolution, benefits, and challenges of preprints and their interaction with journals // Science Editing. 2022. Vol. 9. № 1. P. 79–84. https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.269
  32. Smith O. M., Davis K. L., Pizza R. B., Waterman R., Dobson K. C., Foster B., Jarvey J. C., Jones L. N., Leuenberger W., Nourn N., Conway E. E., Fiser C. M., Hansen Z. A., Hristova A., Mack C., Saunders A. N., Utley O. J., Young M. L., Davis C. L. Peer review perpetuates barriers for historically excluded groups // Nature Ecology & Evolution. 2023. Vol. 7. № 4. P. 512–523. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-01999-w
  33. Steinhauser G., Adlassnig W., Risch J.A., Anderlini S., Arguriou P., Armendariz A. Z., Bains W., Baker C., Barnes M., Barnett J., Baumgartner M., Baumgartner T., Bendall C. A., Bender Y. S., Bichler M., Biermann T., Bini R., Blanco E., Bleau J., … Zwiren N. Peer review versus editorial review and their role in innovative science // Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics. 2012. Vol. 33. № 5. P. 359–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-012-9233-1
  34. Stoddard B. L., Fox K. R. Editorial: Preprints, citations and Nucleic Acids Research // Nucleic Acids Research. 2019. Vol. 47. Editorial. № 1. P. 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gky1229
  35. Stoddart C. Is there a reproducibility crisis in science? // Nature. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00067-3
  36. Tite L., Schroter S. Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey // Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health. 2007. Vol. 61. P. 9–12.
  37. Waltman L., van Eck, N. J. The preprint revolution – Implications for bibliographic databases // Upstream. 2023. https://doi.org/10.54900/fk7p22x-xydnebd
  38. Williams J. B., McNeill J. M. The Current Crisis in Neoclassical Economics and the Case for an Economic Analysis Based on Sustainable Development // SSRN Electronic Journal. 2005. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1606342
  39. Willis M. Why do peer reviewers decline to review manuscripts? A study of reviewer invitation responses // Learned Publishing. 2016. Vol. 29. № 1. P. 5–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1006
  40. Funders support use of reviewed preprints in research assessment // eLife. 2022. https://elifesciences.org/for-the-press/e5423e39/funders-support-use-of-reviewed-preprints-in-research-assessment

Articles

All articles