Communicable E37: 'Peer review is broken'

Communicable

Content provided by CMI Communications. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by CMI Communications or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://player.fm/legal.

1M ago 1:07:02

MP3•Episode home

Contrary to popular belief, peer review has only recently become an integral step in scientific publishing. Currently seen by many as a badge of honour ensuring valid, innovative and honest research, peer review seems in reality to be increasingly thankless, exploitative, and sometimes invisible. How did we get here? In this episode of Communicable, Annie Joseph and Angela Huttner are joined by two experts, Melinda Baldwin (University of Maryland, USA) and Serge Horbach (Radboud University, Netherlands), to unpack and examine the role of peer review, why it is still essential, and how it fits within the greater editorial process. The conversation covers the history of peer review, contemporary formats including open review and the use of artificial intelligence, and thoughtful discussion on how to fix and rethink peer review.

This episode was edited by Kathryn Hostettler and peer reviewed by Barbora Píšová from the Czech Republic.

Related podcast episodes

Communicable episode 13: The Wild West of publishing today—predatory journals and how to deal with them https://share.transistor.fm/s/e3abe9af

Resources

EASE, the European Association of Science Editors https://ease.org.uk/
Peer review week https://peerreviewweek.net/

Further reading

Csiszar, A. The Scientific Journal: Authorship and the Politics of Knowledge in the Nineteenth Century. The University of Chicago Press, 2018. DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226553375.001.0001
Entradas, Sousa, Yan, et al. (2023) Public Deliberative Workshops – Findings. POIESIS project deliverable D2.2. https://poiesis-project.eu/deliverables/.
Ross-Hellauer T and Horbach SPJM. Additional experiments required: A scoping review of recent evidence on key aspects of Open Peer Review, Research Evaluation, 2024. DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvae004
Horbach SPJM and Halffman W. The changing forms and expectation of peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev 2018. DOI: 10.1186/s41073-018-0051-5
Danziger S, et al. Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2011. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1018033108
Fyfe, A., Moxham, N., McDougall-Waters, J., & Røstvik, C. M. (2022). A History of Scientific Journals: Royal Society publishing, 1665-2015. London: UCL Press.
“Misconduct in Science,” 9 February 1983, NN3-443-UD-12D-1 box 78, file “RES 12 Misconduct in Science, 1983-1987,” Papers of the NIH Director, National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, MD.
Baldwin M. In Referees We Trust? How Peer Review Became a Mark of Scientific Legitimacy. MIT Press (Open Access). Work in Progress.

39 episodes

#Fitness #Medicine #CMI Communications #Infectious Diseases #Clinical Microbiology #Escmid #Infection #Trial #Antibiotic Stewardship