Types, limitations, and possible alternatives of peer review based on the literature and surgeons’ opinions via Twitter: a narrative review

IF 1.6 Q2 COMMUNICATION

Science Editing Pub Date : 2022-02-20 DOI:10.6087/kcse.257

S. Emile, H. Hamid, S. Atıcı, Doga Nur Kosker, Mario Virgilio Papa, H. Elfeki, Chee Yang Tan, A. El‐Hussuna, S. Wexner

{"title":"Types, limitations, and possible alternatives of peer review based on the literature and surgeons’ opinions via Twitter: a narrative review","authors":"S. Emile, H. Hamid, S. Atıcı, Doga Nur Kosker, Mario Virgilio Papa, H. Elfeki, Chee Yang Tan, A. El‐Hussuna, S. Wexner","doi":"10.6087/kcse.257","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This review aimed to illustrate the types, limitations, and possible alternatives of peer review (PR) based on a literature review together with the opinions of a social media audience via Twitter. This study was conducted via the #OpenSourceResearch collaborative platform and combined a comprehensive literature search on the current PR system with the opinions of a social media audience of surgeons who are actively engaged in the current PR system. Six independent researchers conducted a literature search of electronic databases in addition to Google Scholar. Electronic polls were organized via Twitter to assess surgeons’ opinions on the current PR system and potential alternative approaches. PR can be classified into single-blind, double-blind, triple-blind, and open PR. Newer PR systems include interactive platforms, prepublication and postpublication commenting or review, transparent review, and collaborative review. The main limitations of the current PR system are its allegedly time-consuming nature and inconsistent, biased, and non-transparent results. Suggestions to improve the PR process include employing an interactive, double-blind PR system, using artificial intelligence to recruit reviewers, providing incentives for reviewers, and using PR templates. The above results offer several concepts for possible alternative approaches and modifications to this critically important process.","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science Editing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.257","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Abstract

This review aimed to illustrate the types, limitations, and possible alternatives of peer review (PR) based on a literature review together with the opinions of a social media audience via Twitter. This study was conducted via the #OpenSourceResearch collaborative platform and combined a comprehensive literature search on the current PR system with the opinions of a social media audience of surgeons who are actively engaged in the current PR system. Six independent researchers conducted a literature search of electronic databases in addition to Google Scholar. Electronic polls were organized via Twitter to assess surgeons’ opinions on the current PR system and potential alternative approaches. PR can be classified into single-blind, double-blind, triple-blind, and open PR. Newer PR systems include interactive platforms, prepublication and postpublication commenting or review, transparent review, and collaborative review. The main limitations of the current PR system are its allegedly time-consuming nature and inconsistent, biased, and non-transparent results. Suggestions to improve the PR process include employing an interactive, double-blind PR system, using artificial intelligence to recruit reviewers, providing incentives for reviewers, and using PR templates. The above results offer several concepts for possible alternative approaches and modifications to this critically important process.

查看原文本刊更多论文

基于文献和外科医生通过推特发表的意见的同行评审的类型、局限性和可能的替代方案：叙述性综述

这篇综述旨在说明基于文献综述以及社交媒体受众通过推特的意见的同行评审（PR）的类型、局限性和可能的替代方案。这项研究是通过#OpenSourceResearch合作平台进行的，并将对当前公关系统的全面文献搜索与积极参与当前公关系统中的外科医生的社交媒体受众的意见相结合。除了谷歌学者外，六名独立研究人员还对电子数据库进行了文献检索。通过推特组织了电子民意调查，以评估外科医生对当前公关系统和潜在替代方法的意见。PR可分为单盲、双盲、三盲和开放PR。较新的PR系统包括互动平台、出版前和出版后的评论或审查、透明审查和合作审查。目前公共关系系统的主要局限性是其据称耗时的性质以及不一致、有偏见和不透明的结果。改进公关流程的建议包括采用互动、双盲的公关系统，使用人工智能招募评审员，为评审员提供激励，以及使用公关模板。上述结果为可能的替代方法和对这一至关重要的过程的修改提供了几个概念。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Science Editing COMMUNICATION-

CiteScore

2.90

自引率

20.00%

发文量

审稿时长

10 weeks

期刊介绍： Science Editing (Sci Ed) is the official journal of the Korean Council of Science Editors (https://kcse.org) and Council of Asian Science Editors (https://asianeditor.org). It aims to improve the culture and health of human being by promoting the quality of editing and publishing scientific, technical, and medical journals. Expected readers are editors, publishers, reviewers, and authors of the journals around the world; however, specially focused to those in Asia. Since scholarly journals in Asia are mostly published by the academic societies, universities, or non-profit organizations, Sci Ed is sought to play a role in journal development. The number of publications from Asia is increasing rapidly and overpass that of other continents; meanwhile, the number of international journals and highly appreciated journals is yet to be coming forward. It is task of Asian editors to pledge the journal quality and broaden the visibility and accessibility. Therefore, its scope includes the followings in the field of science, technology, and medicine.