Toggle menu

The growing dilemma of peer review: a three-generation viewpoint

Issue: 44(2) May 2018. Essays Pages 32 – 34

Victor Virlogeux
Service d’Hépatologie, Groupement Hospitalier Nord, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France; Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Inserm 1052, CNRS 5286, Centre Léon Bérard, Centre de recherche en cancérologie de Lyon, Lyon, France; Centre de Recherche Clinique, Groupement Hospitalier Nord, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France; Département de Biologie, Ecole Normale Supérieure de Lyon, Lyon, France - pierre.pradat@univ-lyon1.fr

Christian Trépo
Service d’Hépatologie, Groupement Hospitalier Nord, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France; Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Inserm 1052, CNRS 5286, Centre Léon Bérard, Centre de recherche en cancérologie de Lyon, Lyon, France; Centre de Recherche Clinique, Groupement Hospitalier Nord, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France

Pierre Pradat
Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Inserm 1052, CNRS 5286, Centre Léon Bérard, Centre de recherche en cancérologie de Lyon, Lyon, France; Centre de Recherche Clinique, Groupement Hospitalier Nord, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France

Abstract

The reviewing process is currently facing a major challenge due to a lack of reviewers. Set up to improve the readability and the quality of published manuscripts, peer review has become the gold standard for scientific literature. Historically, this process was introduced by the Royal Society of London in 1662 in order to ensure scientific integrity as modern science needs to be vetted by peers prior to dissemination. Peer review works on a voluntary basis. However, an ever increasing number of manuscripts, the significant time required for each review, conflicts with other workloads, and lack of credit, make finding reviewers more and more difficult. We discuss in this essay several solutions that could help address the current challenges of peer review.

Full text

Download as PDF

Share this article