\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage[colorlinks = true,
            linkcolor = blue,
            urlcolor  = blue,
            citecolor = blue,
            anchorcolor = blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage[natbibapa]{apacite}
\usepackage{eso-pic}
\AddToShipoutPictureBG{\AtPageLowerLeft{\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{powered-by-Authorea-watermark.png}}}

\renewenvironment{abstract}
  {{\bfseries\noindent{\abstractname}\par\nobreak}\footnotesize}
  {\bigskip}

\titlespacing{\section}{0pt}{*3}{*1}
\titlespacing{\subsection}{0pt}{*2}{*0.5}
\titlespacing{\subsubsection}{0pt}{*1.5}{0pt}

\usepackage{authblk}

\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\providecommand{\tightlist}{\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}%

\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[ngerman,english]{babel}



\begin{document}

\title{Reinventing Peer Review\\}


 \author{The Authorea Team}


\date{}

\begingroup
\let\center\flushleft
\let\endcenter\endflushleft
\maketitle
\endgroup




Peer review is arguably necessary for effective communication amongst
researchers. ~Authors, editors, and the public rely on peer review to
ensure a first measure of trust in scientific communication. ~While peer
review is considered to be integral in scholarly communication by most,
its shortcomings are becoming evident. Former editor of \emph{JAMA~}and
\emph{NEJM} Drummond Rennie once said, ``if peer review was a drug it
would never be allowed onto the market.'' Is this true? Does peer
review, as it is done today, cause more harm than good?\\

\section*{Is Peer Review Broken?}\label{auto-label-section-480916}

\emph{``Peer review is easily abused, and there are many examples of
authors reviewing their own papers, stealing papers and ideas under the
cloak of anonymity, deliberately rubbishing competitors' work, and
taking a long time to review competitors' studies.'' -} Richard \emph{}
Smith, former editor of British Medical Journal.\\

\subsection*{Why is the Peer Review so
Slow?}\label{why-is-the-peer-review-so-slow}

The time it takes from submission to publication is on
average~\href{http://openaccesspublishing.org/oa11/article.pdf}{two
years}. Many authors attribute the lengthy reviewing times~to editor and
reviewer fatigue. Decision whether the paper will be published or not
can be easily delayed by reviewer unavailability. Some fields have a
very small pool of experts. Even though journals try to keep a group of
loyal reviewers, multidisciplinary publishers have to often reach
outside of their list. Multiple rounds of reviews, outsourcing
manuscript management or reviewers intentionally delaying the
publication for personal reasons are cited as other possible
explanations for the long reviewing process (\cite{Nguyen_2015}). In the
age of data-rich papers~reviewers are
\href{http://www.nature.com/news/does-it-take-too-long-to-publish-research-1.19320}{requesting}
more data, revisions and new experiments than they used to which may
cause further delays.\\\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/Screenshot-2016-09-07-15.45.58/Screenshot-2016-09-07-15.45.58}
\caption{{\hypertarget{auto-label-caption-917014}{}
Does it take too long to publish research? Source:
\href{http://www.nature.com/news/does-it-take-too-long-to-publish-research-1.19320}{Nature.com}%
}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

Because of the \emph{publish or perish system}, extreme delays can
negatively impact early career researchers. Publishing delays affect
grant applications and can hinder subsequent work. In the race to
publish,~authors have to consider the cost of lost opportunity when
other group is able to publish research faster. More importantly, delay
in the dissemination of new knowledge
\href{http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05032.html}{comes
as a cost} to the scientific community and general public
(\cite{Nguyen_2015}).\\

A 2008 Research Information Network report estimated that the unpaid
costs of peer review amount to \selectlanguage{ngerman}£1.9 billion per year
(\cite{Golden_2012}).\\

\subsection*{Peer Review Bullying}\label{peer-review-bullying}

\emph{``We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process
that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know
that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable,
incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant,
occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.''} -~Richard Horton,~editor
of the~\emph{Lancet.}\\

Peer review can make or break academic careers. It's even more
precarious when its objectivity is threatened by cognitive and social
bias linked to gender, affiliation, ethnicity, and affiliation.~Suzanne
C. Iacono from National Science Foundation (NSF)
\href{https://www.aaas.org/news/journals-and-funders-confront-implicit-bias-peer-review}{reveals}
that only 18\% of African-American researchers submitting grant
proposals to NFS are successful. National Institutes of Health (NIH)
sees a similar pattern - researchers of African descent ``receive awards
at 55\% to 60\% the rate of white applicants''. In general women and
African-Americans tend to be judged harsher than their white male peers
(\cite{Kaatz_2014}).~\\\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.00\columnwidth]{figures/Screenshot-2016-09-07-10.15.26/Screenshot-2016-09-07-10.15.26}
\caption{{\hypertarget{auto-label-caption-716950}{}
Some types of cognitive bias and potential relevance to scientific peer
review (\protect\cite{Kaatz_2014}).~ ~ ~ ~%
}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

Studies have found a strong evidence of bias towards women in the
process of awarding grants (\cite{Wenner_s_1997}). Research shows that
pervasive cultural traits depicting women as more community-oriented and
men as more goal-oriented can lead to implicit assumption that women are
less competent in typically male-dominated areas (\cite{Biernat_2012}).
While direct gender bias is slowly disappearing, implicit gender bias
can influence even well-intentioned reviewers. Study by Lloyd shows that
papers authored by women have a much higher acceptance rate when
reviewed by female reviewers (62\% vs 21\%) (\cite{Lloyd_1990}).\\\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/Screenshot-2016-09-07-11.56.16/Screenshot-2016-09-07-11.56.16}
\caption{{\hypertarget{auto-label-caption-117519}{}
PloS One reviewer
\href{http://www.nature.com/news/science-and-sexism-in-the-eye-of-the-twitterstorm-1.18767}{suggests}
that adding ``one or two male biologists'' as co-authors would improve
the analysis.%
}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

To prevent this conscious or subconscious stereotyping many journals now
offer~double and triple-blind reviews as well as open review.~Study
following introduction of double-blind review by~\emph{Behavioral
Ecology} journal showed an increase of papers with first female authors
compared with other similar journals (\cite{BUDDEN_2008}). Many
scientists recommend journals to diversify panel boards and structure
external processes to help minimize this bias.\\

Work by Peters and Ceci study showed that research from a well-known
institution was perceived as more valuable than the one associated with
an unknown institution (\cite{Peters_1982}~\&~\cite{Ceci_2014}) Even
though the study was published over 30 years ago, researchers continue
to uncover
\href{https://www.aaas.org/news/journals-and-funders-confront-implicit-bias-peer-review}{similar
problems}. ~\\

The
popular~\href{https://twitter.com/search?q=\%23sixwordpeerreview\&src=typd}{\#sixwordpeerreview~}hashtag
on Twitter documents ongoing struggle with peer review featuring often
sarcastic, unhelpful, and harried comments from the reviewers.\\\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/Screenshot-2016-09-07-11.49.35/Screenshot-2016-09-07-11.49.35}
\caption{{\hypertarget{auto-label-caption-351626}{}
Screenshot of sample posts with \#sixwordpeerreview hashtag ~ ~ ~ ~%
}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\subsection*{Bias Against Negative
Results}\label{auto-label-subsection-441337}

Editorial peer review is strongly skewed towards positive results. While
this is hardly surprising, failure to publish negative outcomes biases
the information base of medicine. It means that thousands of failed
experiments, null or negative results of clinical trials never see the
light of day.~Dr. Natalie Matosin argues that~``Science is, by its
nature, a collaborative discipline, and one of the principal reasons why
we should report negative results is so our colleagues do not waste
their time and resources repeating our findings'' (\cite{Matosin_2014}).

Emergence of journals dedicated to negative results such
as~Elsevier's~\href{http://www.journals.elsevier.com/new-negatives-in-plant-science}{\emph{New
Negatives in Plant Science}} is the first step to tackle the publishing
bias. Word Heath Organization (WHO) is
\href{http://www.who.int/ictrp/results/reporting/en/}{supporting the
movement} by encouraging researchers to publish all previously
unreported results including negative findings.\\

\subsection*{Is Double Blind Review the Way to
Go?}\label{auto-label-subsection-624435}

Reputation, gender or perceived power of the author may positively
affect the acceptance of the paper. Double or triple blind-reviews were
imposed to reduce this bias. However a high degree of specialisation in
modern science does very little to preserve anonymity. Pre-publications,
citations of author's previous work, and tight professional circles
allow reviewers to easily guess author's identity. In one of the studies
46\% of reviewers were able to correctly identify masked authors
(\cite{Fisher_1994}).~Although effects of this guessing game have not
been extensively studied, it can contribute to
\href{http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/42553/title/Mass-Retraction/}{broad
ambivalence} towards double-blind peer review in science.~\\

\href{http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/as-good-as-it-gets-peer-review-and-its-discontents/}{Concerns
are}~that opting for double-blind review might be seen as hiding a
disadvantaged position. A survey conducted by Nature Publishing Group
\href{http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v11/n2/full/nphys3262.html}{revealed}
that only 25\% of submitting authors have opted for anonymity. Even
though both reviewers and authors are blinded, the editors are not. In
journals like Nature, editors
\href{http://retractionwatch.com/2015/02/25/david-vaux-natures-decision-to-add-double-blind-peer-review-is-good-but-could-be-better/}{conduct
first screening} of the papers and can reject them prior to peer review.
Anecdotal evidence
\href{http://www.icsu.org/publications/cfrs-statements/bias-in-science-publishing/advisory-note-bias-in-science-publishing}{suggests}
that editors might feel inclined to recommend authors they met in the
past, are familiar with, or who come from a well known institution.\\

\emph{\href{https://www.peerageofscience.org/}{Peerage of Science}}~is
among journals that experimented with triple-blind peer review.
Unfortunately it proved to be ``too big obstacle for most editors''. In
a press statement issued earlier this year \emph{Peerage of Science's}
founder, Janne-Tuomas Sepp\selectlanguage{ngerman}änen
\href{https://www.researchinformation.info/news/peerage-science-drops-triple-blind-default}{explained}
that ``the leap of faith to trust fully anonymous peer reviewers was too
much for most. The fact is, while we know that our reviewers are
qualified, the editors did not.''\\

\section*{Recognition for Review}\label{auto-label-section-484953}

It is rare for reviewers to get public recognition for their efforts.
Nor are they mentioned when the paper is published. This time consuming
and often labor intensive work is done out of duty to accelerate
science. Level of anonymity varies, but in general the identity of the
reviewer is never disclosed.\\

Platforms like
\href{http://www.reviewerrecognition.elsevier.com/}{Reviewer Recognition
Platform}~and \href{https://publons.com/}{Publons} are slowly changing
this trend. Researches can track their review performance and receive
various perks based on the number of~completed reviews. Perks include
badges, certificates of recognition, and discounts. More and more
journals publish reviewers names as part of annual list. Reviewers can
also
\href{http://www.gmc-uk.org/static/documents/content/CPD___The_International_Perspective_Jul_11.pdf_44810902.pdf}{claim}
Continuing Medical Education (CME) and Continuing Professional
Development (CPD) credits.\\

How should the reviewers be recognised and rewarded? What incentives
should be put in place to encourage them to spare time in a continuous
race to publish? When does the system becomes too \emph{incentivised}?\\

\section*{Collaborative and Open Peer
Review}\label{collaborative-and-open-peer-review}

Science is continuously evolving - following new feedback papers should
be transparently updated and republished. In the open peer review both
authors and reviewers are named, and comments on the manuscript are
publicly available. As former~\emph{British Medical Journal}~editor
Richard Smith points out, the research should be published online to let
``the world\ldots{}decide what's important and what isn't''.\\

Several journals including Nature and OBM experimented with open peer
review. ACP Editor Ulrich P\selectlanguage{ngerman}öschl lists a
\href{http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/information-culture/an-introduction-to-open-peer-review/}{number
of positive impacts} of OPR:\\

\begin{enumerate}
\tightlist
\item
  Quick knowledge dissemination and uncensored scientific
  communication\\
\item
  A way to officially document controversy and discussions surrounding
  the manuscripts\\
\item
  A way to reduce plagiarism\\
\item
  A higher chance to discover manuscript flaws\\
\item
  Final work is based on joint work of authors, reviewers, and the
  interested public~\\
\end{enumerate}

\section*{The Authorea Way}\label{auto-label-section-370239}

We find it hard to believe that in the digital age some papers might
take a year or more to get out of the lab and into the world. Authorea
is actively looking for ways to make it more efficient and transparent.
Using our platform researchers can write preprints as peer review,
annotate documents openly, and directly add editors to Authorea
articles. Git-powered document versioning allows for more dynamic
communication and gives a full view of article history and individual
contributions.\\

It's happening
already:~a~\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.06.007}{paper
written on Authorea}~was submitted to a major journal where it is linked
back to
the~\href{https://www.authorea.com/users/10734/articles/19957/_show_article}{Authorea
article}~allowing readers to leave feedback.\\

\section*{Peer Review Week}\label{auto-label-section-886468}

Help us reinvent peer review. Get involved in
the~\href{https://peerreviewweek.wordpress.com/}{Peer Review Week}~and
review
our~\href{https://www.authorea.com/users/2/articles/20770/_show_article}{Open
Peer Review}~article. How would you fix Peer Review? Is it fixable? What
measures would you put in place? Is OPR the way to go? Let us know what
you think: comment, edit, discuss,~and contest.\\

Finished article will be published on Authorea with full recognition
given to its reviewers.

\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\bibliographystyle{apacite}
\bibliography{bibliography/converted_to_latex.bib%
}

\end{CJK}\end{document}

