View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Peer Review at the Crossroads.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Peer Review at the Crossroads.
Authors: Kochetkov, Dmitry1,2 (AUTHOR) d.kochetkov@cwts.leidenuniv.nl
Source: Learned Publishing. Apr2026, Vol. 39 Issue 2, p1-21. 21p.
Subjects: Scholarly peer review, Scholarly communication, Scholarly publishing, Research evaluation
Abstract: Peer review has long been regarded as a cornerstone of scholarly communication, ensuring high quality and credibility of published research. Although academic journals trace their origins back three centuries, the procedures for evaluating submissions, particularly peer review, have undergone continuous evolution. Peer review's formal institutionalisation in the mid‐20th century represents a significant, yet natural, phase in this ongoing transformation of scholarly communication. By the early 21st century, there emerged an opinion that the conventional model of peer review faces systematic challenges, including inefficiency, bias and institutional inertia. The study aims to synthesise the evolution, practices and outcomes of both conventional and innovative peer review models in scholarly publishing. Through a mixed‐methods approach combining interpretative literature review and process modelling (Business Process Model and Notation–BPMN), it identifies four frameworks: pre‐publication peer review, registered reports, modular publishing and the Publish‐Review‐Curate (PRC) model. While the PRC model, which integrates preprints with post‐publication review, demonstrates advantages in transparency and accessibility, no single approach emerges as universally ideal. The choice of model depends on disciplinary context, resource availability and institutional priorities. The analysis underscores the need for adaptable platforms that enable hybrid workflows, balancing rigour with inclusivity. Future research must address empirical gaps in evaluating these innovations, particularly their long‐term impact on equity and epistemic norms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Learned Publishing is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Engineering Source
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
Text:
  Availability: 1
Header DbId: egs
DbLabel: Engineering Source
An: 193323197
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Peer Review at the Crossroads.
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kochetkov%2C+Dmitry%22">Kochetkov, Dmitry</searchLink><relatesTo>1,2</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<i> d.kochetkov@cwts.leidenuniv.nl</i>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Learned+Publishing%22">Learned Publishing</searchLink>. Apr2026, Vol. 39 Issue 2, p1-21. 21p.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subjects
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scholarly+peer+review%22">Scholarly peer review</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scholarly+communication%22">Scholarly communication</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scholarly+publishing%22">Scholarly publishing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+evaluation%22">Research evaluation</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Peer review has long been regarded as a cornerstone of scholarly communication, ensuring high quality and credibility of published research. Although academic journals trace their origins back three centuries, the procedures for evaluating submissions, particularly peer review, have undergone continuous evolution. Peer review's formal institutionalisation in the mid‐20th century represents a significant, yet natural, phase in this ongoing transformation of scholarly communication. By the early 21st century, there emerged an opinion that the conventional model of peer review faces systematic challenges, including inefficiency, bias and institutional inertia. The study aims to synthesise the evolution, practices and outcomes of both conventional and innovative peer review models in scholarly publishing. Through a mixed‐methods approach combining interpretative literature review and process modelling (Business Process Model and Notation–BPMN), it identifies four frameworks: pre‐publication peer review, registered reports, modular publishing and the Publish‐Review‐Curate (PRC) model. While the PRC model, which integrates preprints with post‐publication review, demonstrates advantages in transparency and accessibility, no single approach emerges as universally ideal. The choice of model depends on disciplinary context, resource availability and institutional priorities. The analysis underscores the need for adaptable platforms that enable hybrid workflows, balancing rigour with inclusivity. Future research must address empirical gaps in evaluating these innovations, particularly their long‐term impact on equity and epistemic norms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>Copyright of Learned Publishing is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=egs&AN=193323197
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/leap.2046
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 21
        StartPage: 1
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Scholarly peer review
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scholarly communication
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scholarly publishing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research evaluation
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Peer Review at the Crossroads.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kochetkov, Dmitry
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 04
              Text: Apr2026
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 09531513
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 39
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Learned Publishing
              Type: main
ResultId 1