Peer review in 2015
A global view
A white paper from Taylor & Francis
© 2015 Taylor & Francis Group CC BY-NC
Reports and guides
> Nature Publishing Group (2015) Author insights 2015 survey.
> Research Information Network (RIN) (2015) Scholarly communication and
peer review: the current landscape and future trends.
> Hames, I. (2013) COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. (COPE Council)
> Ware, M. (2013) Peer review: an introduction and guide. (Publishing
> University of Tennessee & CIBER Research Ltd. (2014) Trust and authority
in scholarly communications in the light of the digital transition.
> Sense about Science (2012) Peer review: the nuts and bolts – a guide for
early career researchers.
> Science and Technology Committee (2011) Peer review in scientific
> Kavanagh, S. (11 September 2015) Peer review: evolution, experiment and
debate. ALPSP Blog
> Meadows, A. (10 September 2015) Peer review week – a celebration! The
> Meadows, A. (31 July 2015) ORCID early adopter peer review program
progress report. ORCID Blog
> Crotty, D. (17 June 2015) The problem(s) with credit for peer review. The
> Cochran, A. (7 May 2015) Sexism in peer review. The Scholarly Kitchen
> Eisen, M. (3 May 2015) Ending gender-based harassment in peer review. it
is NOT junk
> Aarssen, L. (26 March 2015) Why be a reviewer? MusingsOne.com
> Sense About Science (2009) Peer review survey 2009: full report.
> Who’s afraid of open peer review? (21 October 2014) PeerJ Blog
> Ware, M and Monkman, M. (2008) Peer review in scholarly journals:
perspective of the scholarly community – an international study.
(Publishing Research Consortium)
> Ware, M. (2008) PRC Summary Papers 4: peer review: benefits, perceptions
and alternatives. (Publishing Research Consortium)
> Harnad, S. (21 August 2014) Crowd-sourced peer review: substitute or
supplement for the current outdated system? LSE Impact Blog
> Green, A. (20 August 2014) Advancing peer review: a Q&A with Adam Etkin
of PRE. Wiley Exchanges
> Davis, P. (28 May 2014) What motivates reviewers? An experiment in
economics. The Scholarly Kitchen
> Kowalczuk, M. (4 April 2013) Peer pressure: the changing role of peer
review. BiomMed Central Blog
> Davis, P. (22 February 2013) Rewarding reviewers: money, prestige, or
some of both? The Scholarly Kitchen
> Clarke, M. (5 February 2013) An interview with Keith Collier, co-founder of
Rubriq. The Scholarly Kitchen
> Moore, A. (2015) Author-suggested reviewers – Or the helper’s dilemma.
Bioessays 37(9), pp. 929
> Hall, E. (2015) Four reasons to feel good about the future of peer review.
> Nicholas, D. et al. (2015) Peer review: still king in the digital age. Learned
Publishing 28(1) pp. 15–21
> Chetty, R., Saez, E., & Sándor, L. (2014) What policies increase prosocial
behavior? An experiment with referees at the Journal of Public Economics.
Journal of Economic Perspectives 28(3), pp. 169-88.
> Etkin, A. (2014). A new method and metric to evaluate the peer review
process of scholarly journals. Publishing Research Quarterly 30(1) pp.
> Johnston, D. (2015) Peer review under pressure. Research Information
> Willis, M. (2015) Peer review is dead: long live peer review! Slides from a
presentation at the UKSG 2015 annual conference
> Foster, J. (2014) Publishers could provide better support for early-career
researchers. Research Information
> Kriegeskorte, N. (2014) What lesson do rising retraction rates hold for peer
review? The Conversation
> Faulkes, Z. (2014) The vacuum shouts back: postpublication peer review on
social media. Neuron 82(2) pp. 258-260
> The Guardian view on the end of the peer review. [Editorial] (2014) The
> Park, I.-U., Peacey, M. W., & Munafò, M. R. (2014). Modelling the effects of
subjective and objective decision making in scientific peer review. Nature
506, pp. 93–96
> Beyond open access: visions for open evaluation of scientific papers by
post-publication peer review. [Research Topic] (2012) Frontiers
> Vesnic-Alujevic, L. (2014) Peer review and scientific publishing in times of
web 2.0. Publishing Research Quarterly 30(1) pp. 39-49
> Van Noorden, R. (2011) Science publishing: the trouble with retractions
Nature, 478, pp. 26-28.
> Ware, M. (2011) Peer review: recent experience and future directions.
New Review of Information Networking (16)1 pp. 23-53
Journal and service examples
> The EMBO Journal
> F1000 Research
> Peerage of Science
Peer review in 2015 | A global view
Read the accompanying white paper at