• Comparing different types of peer review
• Benefits and flaws
• The process
• Critical reading of a manuscript
• The peer review debate: (not only) a quest for more transparency in the process
• What does it take to be a referee?

Resouces and references

[Open] Peer Review

• PREreview. Open Reviewers toolkit
  • Bias Reflection Guide (assess and mitigate biases)
  • Reviewer Guide
  • Review Assessment Rubric (constructively evaluate their peers’ reviews) 

• Canada Research Chairs. Bias in Peer Review (PDF)
• Canadian Science Publishing. How to write a scientific peer review: a guide for the new reviewer, 
• COPE. Resources collection: Peer Review processes, publicationethics.org/peerreview 
• COPE. Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers, https://publicationethics.org/node/19886 
• eLife. Collection of Peer Review articles, elifesciences.org/collections/0a5cf428/peer-review
• Enago Academy. Resources on Peer Review, enago.com/academy/tag/peer-review/
• Enago Academy. Increasing Diversity and Inclusion in Peer Review, https://www.enago.com/academy/increasing-diversity-and-inclusion-in-peer-review/ 
• Health Systems Global. The peer review process – what happens when you send your manuscript to a journal (A webinar recording that covers the formal process of submitting a manuscript)
• PLOS. Peer Review Center, https://plos.org/resources/for-reviewers/ 
• Science. Peer Review at Science Publications, 
• Wiley. Step by step guide to reviewing a manuscript

Bezuidenhout, Louise, Havemann, Jo, Kitchen, Stephanie, De Mutiis, Anna, & Owango, Joy. (2020). African Digital Research Repositories: Mapping the Landscape [preprint]. // dataset 

Fast, Elizabeth, et al. “Indigenous Knowledges and a Relational Peer Review Process.” International Review of Qualitative Research, vol. 9, no. 4, 2016, pp. 381–84. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26372218 

Foster, Antoinette, Hindle, Samantha, Murphy, Katrina M., & Saderi, Daniela. (2021). Open Reviewers Bias Reflection Guide. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5484052

Gasparyan AY, Gerasimov AN, Voronov AA, Kitas GD. Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication. J Korean Med Sci. 2015;30(4):360-364. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2015.30.4.360

Gregory AT, Denniss AR (2019) Everything You Need to Know About Peer Review — The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, DOI: 10.1016/j.hlc.2019.05.171

Hodgkinson, M., Marincola, E., Aldirdiri, O., & Owango, J. (2020). State of Open Access in Africa and its Implication on Researchers. AfricArXiv. (audio/visual)

Horbach, S.P.J.M., Halffman, W. The ability of different peer review procedures to flag problematic publications. Scientometrics 118, 339–373 (2019). doi: 10.1007/s11192-018-2969-2

Horbach, S.P.J.M., Halffman, W. Journal Peer Review and Editorial Evaluation: Cautious Innovator or Sleepy Giant?. Minerva 58, 139–161 (2020). doi: 10.1007/s11024-019-09388-z 

Kennedy AB. Incentivizing Peer Review. Int J Ther Massage Bodywork. 2017;10(4):5-7. Published 2017 Dec 4. // url: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29209443/

Krummel M, Blish C, Kuhns M, Cadwell K, Oberst A, Goldrath A, Ansel KM, Chi H, O’Connell R, Wherry EJ, Pepper M; Future Immunology Consortium. Universal Principled Review: A Community-Driven Method to Improve Peer Review. Cell. 2019 Dec 12;179(7):1441-1445. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2019.11.029. PMID: 31835023.

Meadows A (2018). Eight Ways to Tackle Diversity and Inclusion in Peer Review. The Scholarly Kitchen

Okune, Angela. (2019). Self-Review of Citational Practice. Zenodo. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3066861 

Owango, J., Obanda, J., Bourguet, D., Marinello, G., Saderi, D., Fornés, A. T., … Havemann, J. (2020). Rapid and Open Peer Review [Webinar]. AfricArXiv. doi: 10.21428/3b2160cd.dba872ac 

Owango, J., Munene, A., Ngugi, J., Havemann, J., Obanda, J., & Saderi, D. (2021). Best Practices and Innovative Approaches to Peer Review [incl. workshop recordings]. AfricArXiv. doi: 10.21428/3b2160cd.c3faf764 

Rajagopalan J (2018). Diverse views on diversity in peer review. Editage Insights

Ross-Hellauer T. What is open peer review? A systematic review [version 2; peer review: 4 approved]. F1000Research 2017, 6:588 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2) 

Ross-Hellauer, T., Görögh, E. Guidelines for open peer review implementation. Res Integr Peer Rev 4, 4 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0063-9 

Ross-Hellauer T, Deppe A, Schmidt B (2017) Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers. PLoS ONE 12(12): e0189311. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189311 

Ross-Hellauer, Tony. (2017). OpenAIRE2020 D7.4 – Novel Models for Open Peer Review. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1257257 

Schmidt B, Ross-Hellauer T, van Edig X and Moylan EC. Ten considerations for open peer review [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2018, 7:969 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15334.1) 

Sebola, M.P., 2018. Peer review, scholarship and editors of scientific publications: the death of scientific knowledge in Africa. KOERS — Bulletin for Christian Scholarship, 83(1).

Stiller-Reeve M (2018). How to write a thorough peer review. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06991-0 

Superchi, C., González, J.A., Solà, I. et al. Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol 19, 48 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0688-x

Squazzoni, F., Marusic, A., Seeber, M., Mehmani, B., Willis, M., Hurst, P., … Grimaldo, F. (2019, November 5). Data Sharing and Research on Peer Review: A Call to Action. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/sr6eg

Tennant J (2020) Time to stop the exploitation of free academic labour. European Science Editing 46: e51839. doi.org/10.3897/ese.2020.e51839

Tennant, J.P., Ross-Hellauer, T. The limitations to our understanding of peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev 5, 6 (2020). // preprint (2019) https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/jq623   

Tennant JP, Dugan JM, Graziotin D et al. A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review [version 3; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2017, 6:1151 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12037.3) 

Tokalić R. and Marušić A. (2018). A peer review card exchange game, European Science Editing 44(3). (A card game covering responsiveness, competence, impartiality, confidentiality, constructive criticism, responsibility)

Related blog posts

---