The peer review process is the evaluation of work by multiple individuals of similar competence. It constitutes a form of self-regulation and is employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance and provide credibility of the work.
But according to Don Braben and Rod Dowler, of University College and London Metropolitan University, the peer review process serves as a blockade to radical research, stifles creativity and limits scientific discoveries.
The process has changed somewhat over the years, but not quite enough as identified in recent findings from the 2017 Peer Review Week, which just occurred September 11-17, 2017. Basically, six initiatives have been targeted to make the peer review process more in sync with today’s ever evolving, fast paced world.
6 Simple Changes Needed to Improve Peer Reviews
- Use AI to find new ways of matching expertise and reviews by better identifying, verifying and inviting peer reviewers.
Using Big Data, Digital Assistants and relevant internet searches, should help bring about reviewers who are best suited to review the data at hand.
- Increase diversity in the reviewer pool.
The best review panel is:
- Represents different parts of the country and/or world
- A good mix of women and men
- Experiment with different and new models of peer review, particularly those that increase transparency.
If you have always emailed or mailed out papers to reviewers, perhaps now is the time to bring everyone together in one room. In the spirit of transparency, have the individuals who wrote the paper available in-person, online or via a conference call to clarify any questions the group may have of them.
- Invest in reviewer training programs.
If someone has never participated in a peer review or has not done so in a very long time, it is important to hold a training program just before the process begins so they are very familiar with the steps and intended outcome of the meeting.
- Find solutions to improve efficiency and benefit all stakeholders.
Researchers, waiting for their papers to emerge from multiple rounds of peer reviews as it bounces from place to place, can easily get frustrated at the inefficiencies of the system. Rubriq co-founder Keith Collier estimates that 50% of articles are initially rejected and have to be altered and resubmitted.Creating an environment where reviewers can come together in one location will allow all parties to feel they are in an environment of efficiency. The scientist or scholar will get immediate reviewer feedback about their work.
- Use technology to support and enhance the peer review process.
The review process should be collaborative in nature. The best way to create this environment is to provide the tools (state-of-the-art hardware, apps and fast, secure Wi-Fi) to make the team very efficient and effective in the process.
Hartford Technology Rental Has a Peer Review Solution
The staff at Hartford Technology Rental believes peer reviews are very important. These reviews use technology to the participants’ advantage, thus creating a streamlined, agile process to getting things done.
Do you have a peer review coming up and need help determining the best technology for it? Give us a call today at 888-520-5667 or fill out our online form.