Research Information Network - Press release



10 March 2010



 



Peer review: good for all purposes?



Peer review is both a principle and a set of mechanisms at the heart of the arrangements for evaluating and assuring the quality of research. A new guide from the Research Information Network provides for researchers and others an outline of how the peer review system works, and highlights some of the challenges as well as the opportunities it faces in the internet age.



 



Peer review: A guide for researchers <http://www.rin.ac.uk/peer-review-guide>  sets out the processes involved in peer review for both grant applications and publications. It also looks at the issues that have been raised in a series of recent reports on the costs of the system, and how effective and fair it is. 



 



The growth in the size of the research community and of the volumes of research being undertaken in the UK and across the world means that the amount of time and effort put into the peer review system is growing too, and that it is coming under increasing scrutiny. The guide looks at how effective peer review is in selecting the best research proposals, as well as in detecting misconduct and malpractice. 



 



The guide also looks at how fair the system is, and at the different levels of transparency involved in the process: from completely closed systems, where the identities of reviewers and those whose work is being reviewed are kept hidden from each other, and reports are not revealed, to completely transparent systems where identities and reports are openly revealed.



 



The burdens on researchers as submitters and reviewers are by far the biggest costs in the peer review system, and the guide outlines some of the measures that are being taken to reduce those burdens, or at least to keep them in check. A growing number of researchers are taking the view that they should be paid for the time they spend in reviewing grant applications and draft publications. But there are also concerns that such payment would significantly increase the costs of the system, and also of scholarly publications. A RIN report in 2008 estimated that if reviewers were to be paid in cash for the full economic costs of their time, then UK academic libraries would have to pay 45% more for their subscriptions to scholarly journals.



 



The internet has speeded up the process of peer review, and widened the pool of reviewers who can be drawn on. It has also provided new channels through which researchers can communicate their findings, and through which other researchers can comment on, annotate and evaluate them. These new opportunities bring new challenges as well. The take-up of the opportunities for open comments, ratings and recommender systems has been patchy to date; and we currently lack clear protocols for the review of findings circulated in multiple formats, including blogs and wikis. The mechanisms for peer review will undoubtedly change in coming years, but the principle will remain central to all those involved in the research community.



 



Peer review: A guide for researchers is available at www.rin.ac.uk/peer-review-guide. Hard copies are also available to distribute to colleagues and students, email [log in to unmask] 



 



- ends -



 



For further information please contact: 



 



Sarah Gentleman        [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>  T +44 (0) 20 7412 7241



 



http://twitter.com/research_inform <http://twitter.com/research_inform> 



http://www.rin.ac.uk/news <http://www.rin.ac.uk/news>  



 



Notes to Editors:



 



The Research Information Network (RIN) was set up in 2005 by the four UK higher education funding bodies, the seven research councils and the three national libraries. The RIN’s role is to enhance and broaden understanding of the information resources and services available to researchers, and how they use them; and to promote the innovation and development of effective policies and strategies for the benefit of the UK research community. www.rin.ac.uk <http://www.rin.ac.uk/>  



 



Activities, costs and funding flows in the scholarly communications system, RIN report 2008 This report provided an analysis of all the costs involved in the process of publishing, distributing and accessing journal articles, both globally and in the UK. The global cost each year of publishing, distributing and accessing journal articles is estimated at £25bn. This considerable sum constitutes some 14% of the overall costs of undertaking, communicating and reading the results of the research reported in journal articles. Within these figures, £1.9bn is accounted for by the unpaid non-cash cost of peer review, some £2.1bn in access provision at libraries and £16.4 billion in user time in searching and accessing. The estimated global incurred cash cost for publishing and distribution is £4.5 billion of this total. The report also shows the sources, nature and scale of the funding and other resources made available to meet these costs and models the impact of possible changes. It aims to provide an evidence-base to underpin the development of policy for research funders and publishers alike. We have made a version of the economic model used in this report available so you can make you own adjustments. www.rin.ac.uk/activities-costs-flows 



 



Research: publishing it, reviewing it and talking about it publicly – a workshop In collaboration with Sense about Science, Vitae, Elsevier and the Voice of Young Science, the RIN ran a workshop on 5 March 2010 at the University of Sussex, aimed at early career researchers in the sciences, to discuss the process of peer review in journal publishing and to explore the criticisms of the peer review process. For more information about the event, see www.rin.ac.uk/peer-review-workshop