Peer review is a fundamental pillar of the dissemination and validation of scientific knowledge. A considerable portion of this process operates on a voluntary basis, involving contributions from paper referees to journal editors. While there are commercial journals that employ professional editors, the core reviewing process still relies on unpaid researchers who offer their time and expertise.
It is my belief that peer review plays an indispensable role in the training and professional development of every scientist. It fosters the ability to understand and critically evaluate the research contributions of fellow scholars within the scientific community. Some of the younger readers may wonder how to engage in peer review, so let me offer one piece of advice. Many journals actively (and sometimes desperately) seek qualified reviewers, often advertising opportunities through their websites, social media channels, etc. In addition to that, graduate students can assist their advisors with peer review activities. Some journals even encourage such involvement and offer credit.
Despite its significance, the peer review system is not without its (mostly justified) criticisms. Accessibility remains a pressing concern, especially for scientists from developing countries or smaller colleges that do not have access to expensive journal subscriptions. In this context, open access has emerged as a possible solution over the past years. However, some journals impose exorbitant open-access publication fees which, again, lead to inequity. This immediately raises questions about the justification of such fees, considering that editors send papers out for review to unpaid referees, and much of the editing work is outsourced to external companies rather than being conducted directly by the journal.
Speaking of inequity, there are further problems in peer review such as biases of both editors and referees against researchers from developing countries and female scientists, especially in fields like physics. There are attempts such as double-blind review processes (where the name and affiliation of the authors is not revealed before acceptance or final rejection) which are expected to make the peer review process more equitable and inclusive, but so far most of the journals adhere to single-blind peer review, where only the identity of the referees remains undisclosed. Another approach is given by transparent peer review, where referee reports are eventually published alongside the actual paper. While this enhances transparency, it also presents a challenge for editors in deciding whether to publish comments that are unfair or not constructive. Therefore, confidential reviews are still a viable choice.
Furthermore, the “publish or perish" mentality in academia poses another challenge. The number of publications per scientist has steadily increased in the past, sometimes at the expense of quality. Researchers aim to get as many citations as possible in order to bolster their h-index (a metric for the scientific output of an individual). The influence of research trends and hot topics on the acceptance of manuscripts is evident; for instance, in condensed matter physics, the focus a few years ago was everything “nano”, while it has shifted to “quantum” in the meantime. Be ready to place your bets on what is going to become the next buzzword.
As alluded to earlier, some journals are struggling to find suitable reviewers, as many scholars are too occupied with research, teaching, service, and perhaps reviewing for other journals. This may sometimes lead to long turnaround times, which, especially in today's fast-paced world, is often deemed inappropriate. Conversely, there are some dubious or even predatory journals that promise extremely short turnaround times, unfortunately (with rare exceptions) at the expense of a flawed and less rigorous review procedure. However, even reputable high-impact journals have published questionable papers, such as some recent false room-temperature superconductivity claims, some of which even contained forged data or at least were later shown to not meet the most basic scientific standards. Eventually, those papers were retracted either by the authors themselves or by the journal. As a consequence, some members of the scientific community are becoming increasingly skeptical towards the current peer-review and journal landscape.
Artificial intelligence (AI) further complicates matters. Over the last weeks, I have already seen several examples on social networks such as X, Reddit and LinkedIn showcasing screenshots of (peer-reviewed!) publications that include phrases clearly output by AI-based large-language models such as ChatGPT. Some examples that I encountered were “Certainly, here is a possible introduction for your topic:” in the first paragraph of the introduction as well as “I’m very sorry, but I don’t have access to real-time information, as I am an AI language model”. I understand that reviewing and editing can be highly demanding tasks, but I am still wondering how this ended up being published. Moreover, there were anecdotal reports by editors who did reject papers that were clearly written (at least in part) with the help of AI. On the other hand, I think that AI can also bring a lot of benefits and make publications better (e.g., language editing in the writing process or even supporting referees). Undeniably, AI remains highly controversial, but it is here to stay, so we need to deal with it and adapt.
So, what is the future of publishing? Will AI dominate and write all review papers in the future, and perhaps even original research papers? Is there still going to be a need for editors and referees? Is the written paper still the best format to disseminate research or are there other mediums that are going to take over (such as videos or carefully prepared social-media posts with the possibility of immediate feedback and follow-up discussions)? Additionally, apart from AI, there are other questions that remain open. For example, should there be a financial reward for referees to incentivize paper reviews? Should all journals adopt the double-blind and/or transparent peer review process? How can we make peer review more equitable and inclusive? There are no simple answers to these questions, but we have to find them.
I want to conclude this blog post on a positive note, underscoring once more that peer review is extremely important and supports researchers at any stage in their careers to receive well-founded feedback from other experts in the community about their work. Personally, I have had many articles that became significantly better after undergoing (sometimes multiple iterations of) the peer review process. More broadly spoken, peer review ensures the quality of research dissemination and will certainly remain an essential part of the scientific community, even though significant changes are on the horizon.
No comments:
Post a Comment