Tag: Quality in Peer Review

Is science a strong-link problem and peer review counterproductive? A pledge for community-driven evaluation of research quality and impact

Is science a strong-link problem and peer review counterproductive? A pledge for community-driven evaluation of research quality and impact

In a thought-provoking blog post, Adam Mastroianni (Columbia Business School) recently stated: “There are two kinds of problems in the world: strong-link problems and weak-link problems.” For weak-link problems, ” the overall quality depends on how good the worst stuff is”. (1) To fix them, we need to eliminate the weakest links or make them stronger. That’s why we have strict quality standards for food. Nobody wants to die because they picked the wrong tuna sandwich off the shelf!

Science, on the other hand, is a strong-link problem, Mastroianni argues: “In the long run, the best stuff is all that matters. The bad stuff doesn’t matter at all.”

In this guest blog, Sebastian Alers debates and analyzes some recent attitudes on science and peer review, in an attempt to call and draw attention to the importance of community-driven evaluation of research quality and impact.

Quality in Peer Review

The long-awaited Peer Review Week has just started, and we could not be more excited! This year’s edition is all about quality in peer review. So, what does quality peer review look like and why is it important?  

Peer review is key to facilitating the growth of scientific knowledge. It allows the community to pool its resources, provide guidance and maintain a common standard of research. It is in everybody’s interest to ensure its highest quality, and the more is invested into this process, the higher the returns. However, the lack of transparency, accountability, and recognition for reviewers creates an unsustainable model of peer review and hampers realizing its full potential. 

ScienceOpen is set to change this!  

Continue reading “Quality in Peer Review”