Bringing a 'trust but verify' model to journal peer review

July 31, 2017

Academic journals are increasingly asking authors to use transparent reporting practices to "trust, but verify" that outcomes are not being reported in a biased way and to enable other researchers to reproduce the results.

To implement these reporting practices, most journals rely on the process of peer review -- in which other scholars review research findings before publication -- but relatively few journals measure the quality and effectiveness of the process.

In a commentary published July 20 in the journal Science, lead author Carole Lee and co-author David Moher identify incentives that could encourage journals to "open the black box of peer review" for the sake of improving transparency, reproducibility, and trust in published research. Lee is an associate professor of philosophy at the University of Washington; Moher is a senior scientist at the Ottawa Hospital and associate professor at the University of Ottawa.

Lee and Moher see this as a collective action problem requiring leadership and investment by publishers.

"Science would be better off if journals allowed for and participated in the empirical study and quality assurance of their peer review processes," they write. "However, doing so is resource-intensive and comes at considerable risk for individual journals in the form of unfavorable evidence and bad press."

To help journals manage the reputational risk associated with auditing their own peer review processes, Lee and Moher suggest revising the Transparency and Openness (TOP) Guidelines, a set of voluntary reporting standards to which 2,900 journals and organizations are now signatories. These guidelines were published in Science in 2015 by a committee of researchers and representatives from nonprofit scientific organizations, grant agencies, philanthropic organizations and elite journals.

Lee and Moher suggest adding a new category to the TOP guidelines "indicating a journal's willingness to facilitate meta-research on the effectiveness of its own peer review practices." With these, journals can choose which tier or level they take on. Higher levels of transparency would involve higher risk.By agreeing to these more stringent guidelines, the authors write, publishers and journals would have the chance to legitimize and advertise the relative quality of their peer review process in an age when predatory journals, which falsely claim to use peer review, continue to proliferate.

"Illegitimate journals are becoming a big problem for science," said Moher. "True scientific journals can distinguish themselves with transparence about their peer review processes."

Investing in research on journal peer review will be costly, they agree. Lee and Moher suggest that large experimental studies are needed to judge the effectiveness of different web-based peer review templates to enforce reporting standards, and of ways one might train authors, reviewers and editors to use such tools and evaluate research.

Also needed, they say, are ways to detect shortcomings in statistical and methodological reporting on a research paper, and to understand how the number and relative expertise of peer reviewers can improve assessment.

The largest publishers, whose profit margins compete with those of pharmaceutical and tech giants, can afford to invest in the requisite technology and resources needed to carry out these audits, the researchers say.

"Publishers should invest in their own brands and reputations by investing in the quality of their peer review processes," said Lee. "Ultimately, this would improve the quality of the published scientific literature."
-end-
For more information, contact Lee at 206-543-9888 or c3@uw.edu, or Moher at dmoher@ohri.ca, or through Jennifer Ganton, the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute's public relations officer, at 613-614-5253 or jganton@ohri.ca.

University of Washington

Related Peer Review Articles from Brightsurf:

First published peer reviews of the WHO solidarity trials
Forthcoming COVID-19 research in Rapid Reviews: adjuvants could improve vaccine efficiency; what are the risks of reinfection; understanding autophagy could inspire new antivirals.

How that preprint about a 'more contagious strain' of coronavirus changed in peer review
On May 5, 2020, news broke about a reportedly more contagious variant of SARS-CoV-2 based on a preprint posted to bioRxiv.

Innovating the peer-review research process
A team of scientists led by a Michigan State University astronomer has found that a new process of evaluating proposed scientific research projects is as effective -- if not more so -- than the traditional peer-review method.

Monty Python's silly walk: A gait analysis and wake-up call to peer review inefficiencies
Fifty years ago, Monty Python's famous sketch, 'The Ministry of Silly Walks,' first aired.

Better science through peer review
The BioScience Talks podcast features discussions of topical issues related to the biological sciences.

Parental coaching adolescents through peer stress
During early adolescence, especially the transition to middle school, kids face a number of challenges both socially and academically.

Peer support reduces carer burden
In a world first, La Trobe University research has shown how peer-led support programs for family and friends who provide regular support to an adult diagnosed with a mental health condition can significantly improve carer well-being.

New research to explore technology needed for peer-to-peer 'free trade' in excess energy
People who generate their own power through solar panels and wind turbines may soon be able to decide where to distribute their excess energy, rather than back to the national grid.

Infants are more likely to learn when with a peer
Researchers at the University of Connecticut and University of Washington looked at the mechanisms involved in language learning among nine-month-olds, the youngest population known to be studied in relation to on-screen learning.

Potential gender bias against female researchers in peer review of research grants
Is peer review biased? Female health researchers who applied for grants from Canada's major health research funder were funded less often than male counterparts because of potential bias, and characteristics of peer reviewers can also affect the result, found a study in CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal).

Read More: Peer Review News and Peer Review Current Events
Brightsurf.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.