Back to the roots: reimagining scientific evaluation of research without peer review

Malik Sallam

doi:10.1629/uksg.714

References

Aczel, B., Barwich, A. S., Diekman, A. B., Fishbach, A., Goldstone, R. L., Gomez, P., Gundersen, O. E., von Hippel, P. T., Holcombe, A. O., Lewandowsky, S., Nozari, N., Pestilli, F., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2025, February 4). The present and future of peer review: Ideas, interventions, and evidence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 122(5), e2401232121. 10.1073/pnas.2401232121 (accessed 14 January 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Aczel, B., Szaszi, B., & Holcombe, A. O. (2021). A billion‑dollar donation: Estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 6(1), 14. 10.1186/s41073-021-00118-2 (accessed 14 January 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Balafoutas, L., Celse, J., Karakostas, A., & Umashev, N. (2025). Incentives and the replication crisis in social sciences: A critical review of open science practices. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 114, 102327. 10.1016/j.socec.2024.102327 (accessed 14 January 2025).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Baldwin, M. (2018). Scientific autonomy, public accountability, and the rise of “peer review" in the Cold War United States. Isis, 109(3), 538–558. 10.1086/700070 (accessed 14 January 2018).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Berg, R. M. G., Hamilton, K. L., Murray, J. F., & Fong, P. (2024, September). Peer review: The imprimatur of scientific publication. Experimental Physiology, 109(9), 1407–1411. 10.1113/ep092108 (accessed 14 January 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bianchi, F., & Squazzoni, F. (2022, June 6). Can transparency undermine peer review? A simulation model of scientist behavior under open peer review. Science and Public Policy, 49, scac027. 10.1093/scipol/scac027 (accessed 14 January 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Burnham, J. C. (1990, March 9). The evolution of editorial peer review. Jama, 263(10), 1323–1329. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/380937 (accessed 16 January 2026).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Campanario, J. M. (2009). Rejecting and resisting Nobel class discoveries: Accounts by Nobel Laureates. Scientometrics, 81(2), 549–565. 10.1007/s11192-008-2141-5 (accessed 14 January 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Castillo, M. (2012, November). Peer review: Past, present, and future. American Journal of Neuroradiology, 33(10), 1833–1835. 10.3174/ajnr.A3025 (accessed 14 January 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Clarivate. (2025, June 25). Managing editor records. https://webofscience.help.clarivate.com/en-us/Content/editor-records.html (accessed 14 January 2026).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Csiszar, A. (2016, April 21). Peer review: Troubled from the start. Nature, 532(7599), 306–308. 10.1038/532306a (accessed 14 January 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Drozdz, J. A., & Ladomery, M. R. (2024). The peer review process: Past, present, and future. British Journal of Biomedical Science, 81, 12054. 10.3389/bjbs.2024.12054 (accessed 14 January 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Frontiers Editorial Office. (2024). Retraction: Cellular functions of spermatogonial stem cells in relation to JAK/STAT signaling pathway. Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology, 12, 1386861. 10.3389/fcell.2024.1386861 (accessed 14 January 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
He, J., & Chen, C. (2018). Predictive effects of novelty measured by temporal embeddings on the growth of scientific literature. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 3, 9. 10.3389/frma.2018.00009 (accessed 14 January 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Henriquez, T. (2023, October 31). Open peer review, pros and cons from the perspective of an early career researcher. mBio, 14(5), e0194823. 10.1128/mbio.01948-23 (accessed 14 January 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hoffmann, D. (2008). “... you can’t say to anyone to their face: Your paper is rubbish.” Max Planck as Editor of the Annalen der Physik. Annalen der Physik, 520(5), 273–301. 10.1002/andp.20085200503 (accessed 14 January 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Holst, F., Eggleton, K., & Harris, S. (2022). Transparency versus anonymity: Which is better to eliminate bias in peer review? Insights: the UKSG Journal. 10.1629/uksg.584 (accessed 14 January 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Horta, H., & Jung, J. (2024). The crisis of peer review: Part of the evolution of science. Higher Education Quarterly, 78(4), e12511. 10.1111/hequ.12511 (accessed 14 January 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hosking, R. (2025, June 24). Peer review – A historical perspective. https://mitcommlab.mit.edu/broad/commkit/peer-review-a-historical-perspective/ (accessed 14 January 2026).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med, 2(8), e124. 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 (accessed 14 January 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Irfanullah, H. (2025, April 9). Peer review has lost its human face. So, what’s next? The Society for Scholarly Publishing. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2025/04/09/peer-review-has-lost-its-human-face-so-whats-next/ (accessed 14 January 2026).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kelly, J., Sadeghieh, T., & Adeli, K. (2014, October). Peer review in scientific publications: Benefits, critiques, & a survival guide. EJIFCC, 25(3), 227–243. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4975196/ (accessed 16 January 2026).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kennefick, D. (2005). Einstein versus the physical review. Physics Today, 58(9), 43–48. 10.1063/1.2117822 (accessed 14 January 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lalli, R. (2016). ‘Dirty work’, but someone has to do it: Howard P. Robertson and the refereeing practices of Physical Review in the 1930s. Notes and Records: The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science, 70(2), 151–174. 10.1098/rsnr.2015.0022 (accessed 14 January 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2–17. 10.1002/asi.22784 (accessed 14 January 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Maddox, J. (2003). How genius can smooth the road to publication. Nature, 426(6963), 119. 10.1038/426119b (accessed 14 January 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Nature Editorial. (2003). Coping with peer rejection. Nature, 425(6959), 645. 10.1038/425645a (accessed 1 October 2003).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Owens, B. (2024, May 27). Frontiers’ journals saw large scale retractions‑where does that leave the publisher’s reputation with researchers? BMJ, 384, q659. 10.1136/bmj.q659 (accessed 14 January 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Phuljhele, S. (2024, November 1). Reviewer fatigue is real. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology, 72(Suppl 5), S719–S720. 10.4103/ijo.Ijo_2465_24.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Resnik, D. B., & Elmore, S. A. (2016). Ensuring the quality, fairness, and integrity of journal peer review: A possible role of editors. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(1), 169–188. 10.1007/s11948-015-9625-5 (accessed 15 January 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ross‑Hellauer, T., & Görögh, E. (2019). Guidelines for open peer review implementation. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 4(1), 4. 10.1186/s41073-019-0063-9 (accessed 15 January 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ross‑Hellauer, T., & Horbach, S. (2024, February 8). Additional experiments required: A scoping review of recent evidence on key aspects of Open Peer Review. Research Evaluation, 33, rvae004. 10.1093/reseval/rvae004 (accessed 15 January 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Spicer, A., & Roulet, T. (2014, June 2). Hate the peer‑review process? Einstein did too. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/hate-the-peer-review-process-einstein-did-too-27405 (accessed 15 January 2026).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Spier, R. (2002). The history of the peer‑review process. Trends in Biotechnology, 20(8), 357–358. 10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01985-6 (accessed 15 January 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Stein, G., Rich, T., Verdin, Z., & Ahearn, C. (2021, May 19). Clarivate, ProQuest, and our resistance to commercializing knowledge. Commonplace. 10.21428/6ffd8432.fb0245ff (accessed 15 January 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Taros, T., Zoppo, C., Yee, N., Hanna, J., & MacGinnis, C. (2023, May 1). Retracted Covid‑19 articles: Significantly more cited than other articles within their journal of origin. Scientometrics, 128(5), 2935–2943. 10.1007/s11192-023-04707-4 (accessed 15 January 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tennant, J. P., & Ross‑Hellauer, T. (2020). The limitations to our understanding of peer review. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 5(1), 6. 10.1186/s41073-020-00092-1 (accessed 15 January 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Thorp, H. H. (2025, April 25). Convergence and consensus. Science, 388(6745), 339. 10.1126/science.ady3211 (accessed 15 January 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Van Noorden, R. (2023, December). More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 ‑ a new record. Nature, 624(7992), 479–481. 10.1038/d41586-023-03974-8 (accessed 15 January 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wolfram, D., Wang, P., Hembree, A., & Park, H. (2020, November 1). Open peer review: Promoting transparency in open science. Scientometrics, 125(2), 1033–1051. 10.1007/s11192-020-03488-4 (accessed 15 January 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Back to the roots: reimagining scientific evaluation of research without peer review

References

Paradigm

My account