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.
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.