Transforming peer review: Modern solutions for academic integrity

Advancing Peer Review: Innovations to Uphold Academic Integrity 

Peer review is more often than not, a lengthy process, reviewer bias and lack of diversity among reviewers are major pain points, and the process lacks transparency—these are just a few of the significant challenges that the peer review process currently faces. Despite these shortcomings sparking ongoing debates and discussions within the academic community, peer review continues to be a foundational element of academic research and publishing. Adding to these difficulties, there have been a rise in the instances of manipulated images use, plagiarism, undisclosed use of AI, and the increasing prevalence of sophisticated paper mills, which further complicates the already burdened peer review system. Nonetheless, the academic community is not sitting idle; stakeholders are actively engaging with and responding to these pressing threats by exploring innovative strategies aimed at improving the peer review process, and in doing so, the scholarly publishing industry is ramping up its efforts to advance conversations that will ensure it not only remains the gold standard in publishing but also adapts to the evolving modern research landscape, ultimately working towards upholding research integrity. Here, we’re taking a look at some innovative system changes that are being considered and explored. 

1. Innovating publication models 

Since its introduction, the open science movement has maintained significant momentum and has been shaking things up in the world of academic publishing. Among its goals are to address inequities in peer review and champion greater transparency in the scholarly process. And in this context, several publishing models have emerged, where review reports are made public. Let’s take Publish-Review-Curate (PRC) model for instance, where authors share their research through preprint servers or institutional repositories, where their work is then evaluated by external services like Review Commons. After undergoing peer review, a selection of these preprints is curated into collections by journals or similar organizations. For example, eLife follows this model by offering "Reviewed Preprints" rather than following a simple accept or reject system, and publishing peer reviews and editorial assessments alongside the preprint. 

There’s also the Peer Community In (PCI), a platform where researchers submit preprints to be peer-reviewed and, if approved, these are "recommended." The recommended preprints are highlighted publicly, with the reviews and recommendation text made accessible. This process acts as a form of validation and curation, providing an alternative to traditional journal publishing. Authors can still submit these reviewed preprints to journals, and in case of certain journals, even bypass additional peer review steps before publication.  

Opening the evaluation process to the scientific community promotes transparency, accountability, and collaboration. Publicly available reviews also tend to hold reviewers accountable, prompting them to provide fair and constructive feedback. This collaborative method reduces biases by combining diverse perspectives, and the increased transparency helps build trust, enhances reproducibility, and boosts the credibility of published research. 

2. Integrating advanced research integrity tools  

It was reported that in 2020, researchers spent an estimated 130 million hours on peer review, highlighting a noticeable strain on the system. As submission volumes increase, this strain is likely to continue. To optimize the use of human reviewer time and expertise, there is potential for the development and implementation of Al-enabled software and research integrity tools designed to assist in the editorial screening and peer review processes. By utilizing Al software to analyze and identify potential issues in manuscripts, such as suspicious activities or image manipulations, publishers could streamline manuscript assessments and help editors and reviewers use their time and expertise in areas that require their critical input and make informed decisions, thereby maintaining the integrity of the scientific record and preserving publisher reputation. In collaboration with Paperpal, the STM Integrity Hub plans to pilot the integration of several research integrity checks related to authorship, affiliations, and citations, enabling publishers using the STM Integrity Hub to detect potential misconduct in manuscript submissions. The Australian Journal of Chemistry is currently trialing ScholarOne's Unusual Activity Detection tool, created by Clarivate, to assist editors in identifying crucial indicators of potential misconduct during the peer review process. 

3. Exploring blockchain technology 

Imagine a system that maintains a digital ledger meticulously documenting, tracking, and securely storing every step of the peer review process, with no chance for alteration. Implementing blockchain technology in peer review could potentially realize this vision. It offers a powerful solution to the common issues of opacity and bias, fostering a fair and transparent review environment by creating a decentralized and immutable record of all peer review activities. In a blockchain-based review system, every action-from manuscript submission to reviewer feedback—would be securely logged and timestamped. Such a system with strong encryption also has the potential to protect the privacy of both authors and reviewers, ensuring that all information remains safe and confidential. Additionally, this approach could be instrumental in offering recognition for reviewers by allowing them to earn tokens, effectively incentivizing their contributions and acknowledging their expertise. 

While there are several studies investigating the use of blockchain in peer review, we haven’t its widespread use or major publishers implementing this technology in peer review as yet. However, there’s ORvium, a blockchain-based platform designed to manage the entire lifecycle of scientific publications, including peer review. 

Also read: The future of peer review: Exploring blockchain’s potential in academic workflows