If it ain't broke, don't fix it?
EFFICIENCY AND SPEEDThe duration of the traditional peer review process varies, largely with journal prestige, but the average is more than 160 days. Authors often face a much longer process with each manuscript. Out of necessity, they are descending the journal prestige ladder one rejection at a time. Each iteration burdens one more Editor, who has to laboriously manage each peer review process, two more Reviewers, contributing their time and expertise, and the operating budget of a journal.
ACCURACY AND FAIRNESSThe thoroughness, quality and competence of reviews in the traditional system are, well, unpredictable and unmeasured, to say the least. Peer review has been shown to be very poor in identifying those articles that will get cited most. Moreover, Author identity and affiliations are usually disclosed to the Editors and Reviewers. Things like personal fame or institutional prestige, gender, nationality, etc, should never influence the entry to or outcome of peer review, but the traditional system provides little safeguards against bias.
COSTEach submission and repeated peer review process has a cost. Authors, Reviewers and Editors spend their precious time. Publishers cover many processes in order to acquire one article to publish, and pay for each process.
REVIEWER REWARDSTraditional peer review system does not give Reviewers citable academic recognition or other compensation for their reviewing work.
Key innovations in Peerage of Science
CONCURRENTIn Peerage of Science, one peer review process is available to all subscribing journals simultaneously. Instead of the wasteful and time-consuming descent down the journal prestige ladder one rejection at a time, manuscripts are matched to appropriate journals in one go. Authors continue to choose which journal best suits their manuscript like they have always done; Editors continue to reject unqualified material. Only now this all happens concurrently instead of sequentially. Journal competition and differences in prestige remain as they are in the traditional system, but this no longer delays the publishing of new science.
CROSS-REVIEWEDIn Peerage of Science, Reviewers evaluate each other's reviews. Peer-review-of-peer-review provides quantified quality control for the reviews, helping the Authors in writing their revision and Editors in making publishing decisions. Importantly, it also enables the Reviewers to merit from their work, by building peer reviewed reputation as an expert in specific fields of science.
AUTOMATEDPeerage of Science peer review process is managed by scheduled software. Deadlines are set by Authors upon submission, and are thereafter automatically enforced. Customizable e-mail alerts about new manuscripts of interest, and about all events and approaching deadlines in processes you are involved in, are of course automatic also. Also, notifying your colleagues, trusted reviewers, your associate editors, or an editor of a suitable target journal about a new manuscripts is easy.
Read more about the benefits and features Peerage of Science offers For Authors, For Reviewers, For Editors and For Publishers
"Having acted as an Editor-in-Chief for couple of journals, I know how hard it is to get good quality reviews in a swift manner. In my eyes, Peerage of Science has potential to fix lot of issues with peer-review and make both journals and authors happy"
Prof. Juha Merilä, University of Helsinki
"In the last year, I have received over 100 review requests, and as an editor I have seen a rise in the number of people I have to contact before I find someone available. Submissions continue to grow, and greater emphasis on high impact factors is driving more speculative submissions. As a reviewer I would welcome a system that valued my contribution, and wasn't simply part of a process of finding the appropriate level for a particular piece of work. Peerage of Science offers the potential for enormous efficiencies and transparency that could save a peer review system that is in danger of collapse.”
Prof. Tom Tregenza, University of Exeter
"Peerage of Science is a very worthwhile innovation that should markedly decrease the inefficiencies of peer review. Having been editor-in-chief of one journal and an editor who arranged reviews for several others, I have personally experienced those inefficiencies. I strongly recommend it and suggest that you immediately give it a try."
Prof. Stephen Stearns, Yale University