Peer review in the COVID era: Searching for the right questions

Other factors can also affect how we perceive the reliability of research, such as: the reputation of the researcher, the reputation of the institution, Michael will the career stage of the researcher, speak more the researcher’s track record (grants, etc.), about integrity and reliability how closely connected the research is to the researcher’s field of expertise (e.g., is this a physi. [...] • For the sake of argument, we’ll focus on the intersection, which Integrity generally means, “this is how good research Reliability should be conducted” The general public understands peer review to be some sort of seal of approval or magic mechanism that is supposed to protect society What does from information chaos peer review “Essentially, peer review is an academic term for quality control. [...] We also hear that rapid science without traditional peer review might be the wave of the future and that review can be “community managed.” Is this true? The answer really depends on: What we think about the intersection of business and science: Is “community management” alone enough to promote and safeguard the goals of open science, reliability and integrity? That is, can scientists by thems. [...] meant to do Before 1900 1920s-30s 1950s-60s 1970s-80s Today Peer review process and expectations So, what now? Redefine peer review (again)? Reinvent peer review? Figure out some other way to protect science? Step one is to try to figure out if are there more “precise” questions we can ask about what the COVID era might mean for peer review. [...] But what change? Peer review is not a good tool for ensuring integrity and reliability, and it has an awkward fit with “open” science In fact, long before COVID, peer review has been under pressure to change, with debates over: Peer review SWOT Peer review research priorities In short, traditional peer review really isn’t what we’ve accepted it to be, and by itself isn’t going to help us meet the.