Alternatives to peer review: novel approaches for research evaluation

被引：36

作者：

Birukou, Aliaksandr ^{[1
,2
]}

Wakeling, Joseph Rushton ^{[1
]}

Bartolini, Claudio ^{[3
]}

Casati, Fabio ^{[2
]}

Marchese, Maurizio ^{[2
]}

Mirylenka, Katsiaryna ^{[2
]}

Osman, Nardine ^{[4
]}

Ragone, Azzurra ^{[2
,5
]}

Sierra, Carles ^{[4
]}

Wassef, Aalam ^{[6
]}

机构：

[1] European Alliance Innovat, Ghent, Belgium

[2] Univ Trento, Dept Informat Engn & Comp Sci, Trento, Italy

[3] HP Labs, Serv Automat & Integrat Lab, Palo Alto, CA USA

[4] Artificial Intelligence Res Inst IIIA CSIC, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain

[5] Exprivia SpA, Molfetta, Italy

[6] Peerevaluat Org, Paris, France

来源：

FRONTIERS IN COMPUTATIONAL NEUROSCIENCE | 2011年 / 5卷

关键词：

research evaluation; peer review; metrics; bidding; opinions; LiquidPub; UCount; MASKING AUTHOR IDENTITY; PREDICTIVE-VALIDITY; QUALITY; PUBLICATION; SELECTION; SCIENCE; MANUSCRIPTS; ACCEPTANCE; EVOLUTION; FAIRNESS;

D O I：

10.3389/fncom.2011.00056

中图分类号：

Q [生物科学];

学科分类号：

07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;

摘要：

In this paper we review several novel approaches for research evaluation. We start with a brief overview of the peer review, its controversies, and metrics for assessing efficiency and overall quality of the peer review. We then discuss five approaches, including reputation-based ones, that come out of the research carried out by the LiquidPub project and research groups collaborated with LiquidPub. Those approaches are alternative or complementary to traditional peer review. We discuss pros and cons of the proposed approaches and conclude with a vision for the future of the research evaluation, arguing that no single system can suit all stakeholders in various communities.

引用

页数：12

共 50 条

[41] The state of the art in peer review
Tennant, Jonathan P.
FEMS MICROBIOLOGY LETTERS, 2018, 365 (19)
[42] Peer review in forensic science
Ballantyne, Kaye N.
Edmond, Gary
Found, Bryan
FORENSIC SCIENCE INTERNATIONAL, 2017, 277 : 66 - 76
[43] The objectivity of national research foundation peer review in South Africa assessed against bibliometric indexes
Fedderke, J. W.
SCIENTOMETRICS, 2013, 97 (02) : 177 - 206
[44] Tolerance in the Peer Review of Interdisciplinary Research in Architectural Journal Publishing
Troiani, Igea
Ewing, Suzanne
ARCHITECTURE AND CULTURE, 2019, 7 (01) : 13 - 30
[45] Expanding the Paediatric Urology Peer Review Pipeline: A Novel Panel and Facilitated Peer Mentorship Program
Ernst, Michael
Jaeger, Christopher
Nelson, Caleb P.
Tanaka, Stacy
Regala, Jennifer
Ching, Christina
LEARNED PUBLISHING, 2025, 38 (02)
[46] Critical feedback on peer review research
Cheung, Yin Ling
3RD WORLD CONFERENCE ON EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES - 2011, 2011, 15 : 535 - 538
[47] Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but not peer review outcomes at an ecology journal
Fox, Charles W.
Burns, C. Sean
Meyer, Jennifer A.
FUNCTIONAL ECOLOGY, 2016, 30 (01) : 140 - 153
[48] Advances in peer review research: an introduction
Arthur E. Stamps
Science and Engineering Ethics, 1997, 3 (1) : 3 - 10
[49] Parallel Analysis on Novel Peer Review System for Academic Journals
Liu, Li
Tan, Zong-Yuan
Diao, Chen
Cai, Ning
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 33RD CHINESE CONTROL AND DECISION CONFERENCE (CCDC 2021), 2021, : 2514 - 2519
[50] Evaluation of Peer Review of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Operator Performance
Doll, Jacob A.
Hebbe, Annika L.
Simons, Carol E.
Stein, Elliot J.
Eisenbarth, Stephan
Waldo, Stephen W.
Rao, Sunil V.
Au, David H.
CIRCULATION-CARDIOVASCULAR QUALITY AND OUTCOMES, 2025, 18 (01): : e011159

← 1 2 3 4 5 →