Page 19 - Straive eBook: Redefining Your Peer Review Experience

Straive | Redefining Your Peer Review Experience 19

Other Innovations

in Review

Innovations in peer review have appeared
throughout this report, mostly resting on new
technologies to reduce editor and reviewer
effort. Other forms of innovation have centred
on variations of ‘open’ peer review: naming
reviewers, publishing review reports, and so
on. Whether publishers are transparent in
their review processes or not, many are now
providing credit for peer review activities
through new services like ORCID’s peer
review contributions section and Publons.
The concept of review credit has been and
remains a contentious one, with the question
of paying peer reviewers taking centre stage in
the 2021 Researcher to Reader conference
debate (attendees agreed with Alison Muddit
and Tim Vines, arguing that payment for review
would encourage unethical behaviour and
increased costs).

Similarly, we touched on innovative new platforms that utilise peer review, such as F1000
Research and Wellcome Open Research. These services still put peer review at the heart of
quality control, but they do so in a transparent way that gives the public early access to
research before peer review starts, as well as access to review reports when they are
received. Related to these open platforms are ‘Registered Reports’, in which journals review
research methodology and guarantee to publish the resulting article regardless of results,
provided the authors adhere to the method they outline in the initial report. One challenge
reported by publishers behind these initiatives, as well as early adopters of open review
initiatives, is that it can be more challenging to recruit peer reviewers. Unfortunately, there are
no easy solutions for this problem, as willingness to review openly relies on cultural change in
research communities more than it does on publisher initiatives.

The last category of innovation is portable peer review, exemplified by the MECA protocol
(Manuscript Exchange Common Approach). Conceived in 2016, MECA allows articles and
their associated peer reviews to be transferred from one journal to another, not just within a
publisher’s portfolio but across portfolios.

Straive’s Transfer Desk service makes use of the MECA protocol, but supported by
experienced JEO staff to maximise uptake of offered transfers. Sharing reviewer reports in
this way reduces the number of times a single article is reviewed, which has historically been
a considerable source of waste in the peer review process — one article we’re aware of was