Evaluating traditional peer-review processes and their alternatives: An opinionated discussion

By Aaron Weiskittel, University of Maine, School of Forest Resources, Orono, Maine, USA

Associate Editor with Annals of Forest Science (and a few other journals).

Abstract

The advancement of science requires the timely and effective communication of important findings, which often takes the form of peer-reviewed journal articles. In the past decade, there has been significant changes in the world of scientific publishing with the rise of e-journals, open-access articles, and a greater volume of manuscript submissions. However, the overwhelming majority of journals rely on a traditional peer-review model, which is often inefficient and ineffective. In this discussion, I evaluate the core assumptions of traditional peer-review processes, assess current alternatives to traditional peer-review, and provide recommendations for authors, reviewers, Associate Editors, and Editors. Overall, the intent of the discussion is to raise the importance of this issue and provide some suggestions for change.

Read the full paper


Publication

Weiskittel A 2015. Evaluating traditional peer-review processes and their alternatives: An opinionated discussion. Mathematical and Computational Forestry and Natural-Resource Sciences 7: 81-92.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.