The recent UC/Elsevier fallout has made me interested in evaluating what our idealized or future models of publishing should look like.
Investigators have shared interesting ideas on how we should reform peer review and create an open access publishing environment. This advocacy has been going on for decades and I recall the excitement of journals like PLoS being started, but the variability in quality and interest has only led to the proliferation of more journals and staggering publication numbers each month.
What ideas do people have for creating a more egalitarian system for publishing/peer review that provides sufficient monitoring of quality?
Some principles I would like to see include:
- Blinded review (no authorship or institutions displayed for peer reviewers). People may infer, or guess with some certainty, but our default shouldn’t be to provide that information to peer reviewers/editors.
- Public sharing of anonymous peer review comments along with articles.
- Peer review credits/payments - service provides opportunity to have one’s own work reviewed in a timely fashion. Not sure how feasible financial payments would be. Depends on revenue models.
- Open access and pre-prints
- Overall better adherence to statistical statements and principles of testing. This would generally mean that our journals need to lead the way in using statistics and causal inference language appropriately.
I know people have shared other interesting modifications to scientific publishing, but I was hoping to see if we could use this forum to organize a feasible model. Appreciate all thoughts.