Published May 26, 2026 | Version v1
Presentation Open

На перепутье: инновации в научном рецензировании

Authors/Creators

  • 1. Scientific Electronic Library LLC
  • 2. ROR icon Leiden University
  • 3. Institute for the Study of Science, Russian Academy of Sciences

Description

В докладе рассматриваются инновации в системе научного рецензирования - от исторических предпосылок до современных экспериментальных моделей. Анализируется кризис конвенционального допубликационного рецензирования: дефицит рецензентов, рост издержек, систематические искажения и угрозы целостности научной литературы. Предложена типология инноваций, включающая в том числе открытое рецензирование, предрегистрируемые отчёты, модульную публикацию и модель «Публикуй-Рецензируй-Курируй» (PRC). На основе данных платформы eLIBRARY.RU представлен анализ практики открытого рецензирования в России: несмотря на рост числа загружаемых рецензий, открытое рецензирование остаётся нишевой практикой - менее 10% рецензий публикуются открыто. Сформулированы выводы о перспективах распространения инновационных моделей рецензирования и их связи с реформой системы оценки исследований.

Abstract (English)

This presentation examines innovations in scholarly peer review, from their historical origins to contemporary experimental models. It analyzes the crisis of conventional pre-publication peer review across four dimensions: reviewer shortages, rising costs, systematic biases, and threats to research integrity. A typology of innovations is proposed, covering open peer review, registered reports, modular publishing, and the Publish-Review-Curate (PRC) model. Drawing on data from the eLIBRARY.RU platform, the presentation documents open peer review adoption in Russia: despite steady growth in uploaded review reports, open peer review remains a niche practice — fewer than 10% of reviews are publicly accessible. The presentation concludes with an assessment of the prospects for wider adoption of innovative review models and their relationship to research assessment reform.

Files

Kochetkov_NIMU2026_HQ.pdf

Files (5.0 MB)

Name Size Download all
md5:c11c7e78ef4e87fcc6d4403807baba59
5.0 MB Preview Download

Additional details

Additional titles

Translated title (English)
At the Crossroads: Innovations in Peer Review

References

  • Aczel, B., Szaszi, B., & Holcombe, A. O. (2021). A billion-dollar donation: Estimating the cost of researchers' time spent on peer review. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 6(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00118-2
  • Bohlin, I. (2004). Communication regimes in competition: The current transition in scholarly communication seen through the lens of the sociology of technology. Social Studies of Science, 34(3), 365–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312704041522
  • Chapelle, F. H. (2014). The History and Practice of Peer Review. Groundwater, 52(1), 1–1. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwat.12139
  • Fyfe, A. (2019, September 15). Quality in peer review: A view through the lens of time. The Royal Society.
  • Kling, R., & McKim, G. (1999). Scholarly communication and the continuum of electronic publishing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(10), 890–906. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(1999)50:10%253C890::AID-ASI6%253E3.0.CO;2-8
  • Kochetkov, D. (2026). Peer Review at the Crossroads. Learned Publishing, 39(2), e2046. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2046
  • Moxham, N., & Fyfe, A. (2018). THE ROYAL SOCIETY AND THE PREHISTORY OF PEER REVIEW, 1665–1965. The Historical Journal, 61(4), 863–889. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0018246X17000334
  • Palmer, K. (2026, May 14). Will Paying Reviewers Ease the Peer Review Crisis? Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty/books-publishing/2026/05/14/will-paying-reviewers-ease-peer-review-crisis
  • Roosendaal, H. E., Geurts, P. A. Th. M., & van der Vet, P. E. (2001). Developments in scientific communication: Considerations on the value chain*. Information Services & Use, 21(1), 13–32. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-2001-21103
  • Smith, O. M., Davis, K. L., Pizza, R. B., Waterman, R., Dobson, K. C., Foster, B., Jarvey, J. C., Jones, L. N., Leuenberger, W., Nourn, N., Conway, E. E., Fiser, C. M., Hansen, Z. A., Hristova, A., Mack, C., Saunders, A. N., Utley, O. J., Young, M. L., & Davis, C. L. (2023). Peer review perpetuates barriers for historically excluded groups. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 7(4), 512–523. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-01999-w
  • Steinhauser, G., Adlassnig, W., Risch, J. A., Anderlini, S., Arguriou, P., Armendariz, A. Z., Bains, W., Baker, C., Barnes, M., Barnett, J., Baumgartner, M., Baumgartner, T., Bendall, C. A., Bender, Y. S., Bichler, M., Biermann, T., Bini, R., Blanco, E., Bleau, J., … Zwiren, N. (2012). Peer review versus editorial review and their role in innovative science. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 33(5), 359–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-012-9233-1
  • Tite, L., & Schroter, S. (2007). Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 61, 9–12.
  • Topaz, M., Roguin, N., Gupta, P., Zhang, Z., & Peltonen, L.-M. (2026). Fabricated citations: An audit across 2·5 million biomedical papers. The Lancet, 407(10541), 1779–1781. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(26)00603-3
  • Waltman, L., Kaltenbrunner, W., Pinfield, S., & Woods, H. B. (2023). How to improve scientific peer review: Four schools of thought. Learned Publishing, 36(3), 334–347. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1544