Department of Biology, Trent University, 1600 West Bank Drive, Peterborough, K9J 7B8, Ontario, Canada.
CIBIO, InBIO - Research Network in Biodiversity and Evolutionary Biology, Universidade do Porto, Campus de Vairão, Rua Padre Armando Quintas, 4485-661, Vairão, Portugal.
Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2016 Aug;91(3):597-610. doi: 10.1111/brv.12185. Epub 2015 Apr 10.
Peer review is pivotal to science and academia, as it represents a widely accepted strategy for ensuring quality control in scientific research. Yet, the peer-review system is poorly adapted to recent changes in the discipline and current societal needs. We provide historical context for the cultural lag that governs peer review that has eventually led to the system's current structural weaknesses (voluntary review, unstandardized review criteria, decentralized process). We argue that some current attempts to upgrade or otherwise modify the peer-review system are merely sticking-plaster solutions to these fundamental flaws, and therefore are unlikely to resolve them in the long term. We claim that for peer review to be relevant, effective, and contemporary with today's publishing demands across scientific disciplines, its main components need to be redesigned. We propose directional changes that are likely to improve the quality, rigour, and timeliness of peer review, and thereby ensure that this critical process serves the community it was created for.
同行评议对于科学和学术界至关重要，因为它是确保科学研究质量控制的一种广泛接受的策略。然而，同行评审系统难以适应学科的最新变化和当前的社会需求。我们为管理同行评审的文化滞后提供了历史背景，这种滞后最终导致了该系统目前的结构弱点（自愿评审、非标准化评审标准、分散的评审过程）。我们认为，目前一些升级或修改同行评审系统的尝试只是对这些根本缺陷的权宜之计，因此不太可能从长远角度解决这些问题。我们声称，为了使同行评审具有相关性、有效性，并与当今各科学领域的出版需求保持一致，需要重新设计其主要组成部分。我们提出了可能会提高同行评审的质量、严谨性和及时性的方向性变化，从而确保这一关键过程能够为其创建的社区服务。
