blog

Paving the way to a more robust academic research peer review system

Each year, F1000Research supports the peer review workshops run by Sense About Science (SAS), a UK charity that aims to put science and evidence in the hands of the public. Free to attend, these half-day workshops are aimed at all early career researchers (ECRs), scientists, social scientists, engineers and medics. Each event examines the process of peer review in detail through a combination of group work, panel talks from experienced editors, authors and reviewers, and audience discussion. In this blog, Tiago Marcos from the University of Edinburgh, reflects on his own experience of ECR involvement in peer review and the learns he took away from the SAS peer review workshop he attended.

In my experience, peer review is never talked about much in undergraduate life sciences courses. I used to think that peer review was about re-running the experiments done by the research group trying to get published and observing the results – if the results matched the original data, you would get published.

At MSc level, you start to hear hints of publishing generally along the lines of: “Your paper will be submitted and then…who knows?” So there I was, as a third-year PhD student trying to publish the results of my research, realising I don’t know much about the process of getting there, and without much hope of figuring it out on my own because it’s such a black box.

So I made my way to Glasgow Caledonian University  for the Voice of Young Science Peer Review: the nuts and bolts workshop, supported by their free guide written by and for early career researchers (ECRs). This afternoon session, run by Sense about Science, comprised a panel, with discussions about the strengths, challenges and future of peer review, with lots of practical hints and tips. The breadth of expertise was impressive, including Gordon Ramage, professor at the University of Glasgow School of Medicine, Dentistry & Nursing, and editor-in-chief of the journal Critical Reviews in Microbiology, who opened up the black box of peer review; Prof  Bonnie Steves, professor of astrodynamics at Glasgow Caledonian University with her experiences and tips as a scientist peer reviewer peer review; and Eleanor-Rose Papas, editorial operations manager at F1000 Research Ltd, who discussed how emphasis is placed on the ethics, quality and robustness of the peer review process.

The best aspect of these VoYS workshops is the interactive nature of the discussion, not only to express concerns but also to talk about ways of getting the system to work more seamlessly. One of the ideas discussed was publishers offering a variety of incentives for carrying out reviews. A possible follow-up to that discussion would be to introduce publishers to ECRs for hands-on sessions to find more common ground and concrete solutions.

I see three main barriers for ECR involvement in the peer review process:

Barrier #1 – Awareness

In my opinion this first one is so easy to solve! In life science programmes, time is rarely set aside to explain how the peer review process works. Talking more about it would almost certainly help. The workshop kick starts this by providing an opportunity for researchers to mingle and communicate with publishers and peers.

Barrier #2 – Opportunity

Opportunities for ECRs to get involved in doing peer review would bring two benefits: added scrutiny of the manuscript and a direct way for the ECR to gain experience and knowledge of the process. Journal clubs do provide some training but nothing like the responsibility of peer reviewing new manuscripts. One of the best ways to gain experience is to collaborate with a colleague who already has some experience of peer review, by co-reviewing an article together. Co-reviewing is one of the benefits made possible by open peer review, since all reviewers can claim credit for their work when providing peer review reports. co-reviewing and open peer review in this blog on F1000Research.

Barrier #3 – Recognition

And the third barrier is lack of recognition. Many scientists would love to review new research in their fields, but there is a sense (that I got from the workshop and from senior colleagues) that the current system overburdens those involved. We addressed this in the workshop when we initiated a dialogue about the incentives system.

Being involved in the peer review process helps to improve discussions of science and evidence on matters of public interest, particularly where there are misconceptions or misrepresentations. This workshop broadened my perspectives on how the system is progressing towards a more open and transparent peer review process that aims to give credit where credit is due.

This workshop also made me realise the responsibility we have as ECRs to get involved in discussions about quality and peer review. Because it is key to ensuring that information communicated to and used by the public is accurate. The workshop helps researchers to see the value of peer review in helping the public to make sense of science and evidence on issues that really matter to them. And to be part of that discussion is no small matter!

Find out more how you can be involved too by joining the SAS’ ‘Voice of Young Science’ network and attending a workshop.  

.