About Meta-research and Peer Review

The Meta-research and Peer Review collection demonstrates a commitment to open-access publication of high quality and original research output about peer review as a research topic in its own right.

Peer review plays a significant role in academia as it is key in determining what papers are published and how research grants are awarded and allocated, influencing the direction of science itself immensely. However, there has been an increasing critique regarding how well peer review can select the best papers and most deserving grant applications. Some recent research has even examined using random allocation in place of peer review.

This collection aims to curate research about the impact and validity of peer review, including critiques of current approaches and tests of alternative peer review processes. The papers may provide reviews or experiments of peer review across academia, from project proposals to grant review to scholarly publication.

Contributors should consider focusing on key issues including but not limited to:

• Peer review costs and Research Waste
• Open Peer Review
• Peer Review and Research Impact
• Peer Review and Research Validity
• Disadvantages of Peer Review
• Attitudes to Peer Review
• Alternative models of Peer Review
• Code Review

Submissions using qualitative and quantitative methods are welcomed, as is methodological reflection on the challenges regarding conducting meta-research.

Keywords: meta-research, peer review, evaluation, academic writing, scientific writing, systematic review, open peer-review, research funding

Any questions about this collection? Please email research@f1000.com

This collection is associated with the Research on Research, Policy & Culture Gateway.